Can a Michigan lawyer advertise that a portion of the lawyer's fee will be donated to a church or charity?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether it was ethical to state, in a publication advertisement or while speaking to a church or charitable group, that a portion of the lawyer's fee would be donated to that organization. The Committee began from MRPC 7.1, which permits advertising in print and by speaking to groups, and MRPC 7.2(c)(i), which lets a lawyer pay the reasonable cost of advertising. It noted the two limits at issue: MRPC 5.4(a) bars sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, and MRPC 7.2(c) bars giving anything of value to a nonlawyer in return for recommending the lawyer's services. The rationale behind MRPC 5.4(a), the Committee observed (citing RI-104), is to preserve the lawyer's independent professional judgment.

The Committee distinguished arrangements it had disapproved. In R-6 a lawyer could pay reasonable advertising costs of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service but could not turn over a share of fees earned from referrals. In RI-36 a chamber-of-commerce hotline that took a percentage of fees was found to violate both MRPC 7.2(c) and 5.4(a) because the chamber's endorsement was implied. In RI-147 a chamber could advertise and recommend a lawyer's services only if it received nothing of value beyond the reasonable advertising cost.

Here, by contrast, the charitable organization was not involved in the lawyer's advertising or in the offer to donate. Because the organization was not communicating the pledge, it was not using the lawyer's offer as an incentive, not endorsing the lawyer's qualifications, and not encouraging use of the lawyer's services. The Committee concluded that as long as the lawyer in fact donated the portion of fees as advertised, the advertisement did not violate MRPC 7.1, and the communication did not constitute "giving of value" for a referral in violation of MRPC 7.2(c).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993 and interprets the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct as they then stood. The MRPC have since been amended, and later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise that part of the fee goes to a charity?

A: Per the opinion, yes. The Committee concluded a lawyer may state in a print ad or to a group that a portion of the fee will be donated to a religious or charitable organization, provided the organization is not involved in communicating the offer and the lawyer in fact makes the donation.

Q: Does pledging part of a fee to charity count as sharing fees with a nonlawyer under MRPC 5.4(a)?

A: The opinion treated the question under MRPC 7.2(c) and 7.1 and concluded that, because the charity was not communicating the pledge or recommending the lawyer, the arrangement did not constitute giving value for a referral; the Committee identified preserving independent professional judgment as the purpose of MRPC 5.4(a).

Q: What changes the answer, making such an arrangement improper?

A: The opinion contrasted RI-36, where a chamber of commerce received a percentage of fees from a hotline and was treated as impliedly endorsing the lawyer; that fee-sharing arrangement violated MRPC 7.2(c) and 5.4(a). The key was whether the organization was involved in recommending the lawyer or received a share of fees.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets MRPC 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services; Model Rule 7.1), MRPC 7.2(c) (paying others for recommending the lawyer's services, with an exception for reasonable advertising costs; Model Rule 7.2), and MRPC 5.4(a) (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer; Model Rule 5.4). The Committee applied its prior opinions R-6, RI-36, RI-104, and RI-147 to draw the line between paying advertising costs and giving value for a recommendation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 5.4 / MRPC 5.4(a) (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer)
• MR 7.1 / MRPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.2 / MRPC 7.2(c) (paying for recommendations; advertising-cost exception)

Other opinions cited:

• Michigan R-6: paying advertising costs of a referral service but not sharing fees from referrals
• Michigan RI-36: chamber-of-commerce hotline taking a percentage of fees disapproved
• Michigan RI-104: rationale of MRPC 5.4(a) is preserving independent professional judgment
• Michigan RI-147: organization may recommend a lawyer only if it receives nothing of value beyond advertising cost

See also

• Mich Ethics Op. RI-164: Free Will for a Charitable Bequest
• Mich Ethics Op. RI-229: Church List of Bequest Lawyers
• Mich Ethics Op. RI-244: Direct-Mail Circular and Affordable Fees

Source

• Landing page: https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions?OpinionID=1033&Type=6

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

RI-163

April 30, 1993

SYLLABUS

A lawyer may communicate, either in a print advertisement or while speaking to an assembled group, that a portion of the lawyer's fee will be donated to a religious or charitable organization.

References: MRPC 5.4(a), 7.1, 7.2(c); R-6; RI-36, RI-104, RI-147.

TEXT

A lawyer asks whether it is ethical for the lawyer to state either in an advertisement in a publication, or while speaking to a group associated with a church or other charitable organization, that a portion of the lawyer's fee will be donated to the church or charity.

Lawyers may advertise their services in the print media and by speaking to groups, MRPC 7.1, and may also pay for the reasonable cost of advertising, MRPC 7.2(c)(i). A lawyer is prohibited from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, MRPC 5.4(a), or giving anything of value to a nonlawyer in return for recommending the lawyer's services, MRPC 7.2(c). The principal rationale behind the prohibition in 5.4(a) against sharing fees with nonlawyers is to preserve the lawyer's independent professional judgment. RI-104.

The Committee opined in R-6, that a lawyer could pay the reasonable advertising costs associated with the lawyer's participation in a not-for-profit Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) operated by nonlawyers, but would be prohibited by MRPC 5.4(a) from turning over a portion of the legal fees earned as a result of referrals to the Lawyer Referral Service.

A similar proposal was disapproved in RI-36. In that opinion a lawyer proposed an arrangement whereby a chamber of commerce would sponsor a hotline for advice with respect to labor issues. Calls placed to the Hotline would be answered at the lawyer's office. It was proposed that the Chamber would receive a percentage of any legal fees collected from hotline callers. Although the Chamber did not expressly recommend the lawyer's services, the Committee concluded that the chamber's endorsement of the lawyer was implied in the hotline arrangement. The proposed fee sharing arrangement with the Chamber was found to violate the prohibition against giving anything of value in return for recommending a lawyer's services contained in MRPC 7.2(c), and the rule against sharing fees with a nonlawyer in MRPC 5.4(a).

In RI-147 a chamber of commerce was allowed to advertise and recommend a lawyer's services to its members, as long as, among other things nothing of value beyond the reasonable cost of the advertising is given to the organization by the lawyer. The lawyer was allowed to discount fees to members of the chamber of commerce, as long as the chamber of commerce did not advertise, as an incentive for membership in the chamber, that the lawyer offers discounts to the chamber's members.

In the fact situation before us, there is no information that the religious or charitable organization is involved in the lawyer's advertising or the lawyer's offer to donate fees. Since the charitable organization is not involved in the communication of the pledge by the lawyer, the organization is not using the lawyer's offer as an incentive, is not endorsing the lawyer's qualifications, and is in no way encouraging the use of the lawyer's services. As long as the lawyer in fact donates the portion of fees to the charitable organization as advertised, the proposed advertisement does not violate MRPC 7.1, nor does the communication constitute "giving of value" for a referral from the organization in violation of MRPC 7.2(c).