When a Michigan lawyer leaves a law firm to start a new practice, can the lawyer mail announcements to clients of the former firm?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1990. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The opinion addressed a salaried associate in a professional corporation who planned to leave for solo practice and mail announcements to clients the lawyer considered the lawyer's own but the firm considered its clients; there was no agreement allocating the clients, although the lawyer had brought them in, billed and collected from them, and supervised their work. The proposed announcement stated the formation of the new practice, identified firms the lawyer would be "of counsel" to, and gave the new address and phone number. The lawyer asked to whom the announcement could be sent.
The Committee noted that whether a client "belongs" to the departing lawyer or the firm is a question of fact, and that if it is not clear a client retained the lawyer personally, the firm is assumed to have been retained (CI-263). Earlier opinions had drawn a distinction: a departing lawyer could generally send announcements to the lawyer's own clients but not to clients of the firm, and partners were given more latitude than associates. The Committee concluded that, under MRPC 7.1 and 7.3, a departing lawyer (associate or partner) may advise a client by phone, in person, or in writing that the lawyer is leaving the firm, as long as there is no solicitation; the content must comply with MRPC 7.1 and must not be false, misleading, compare lawyers' services, or create an unreasonable expectation of results.
Because the proposed announcement was not solicitation (it did not urge the recipient to recontact the lawyer or ask the client to hire, fire, or decide anything, and gave only the lawyer's new location and professional relationship), the Committee saw no basis to continue the distinction between departing associates and partners as to whom MRPC 7.1 communications could be sent. The departing associate could send the announcement to clients of the former firm. The Committee emphasized it was not expressing any view on the legal consequences of the proposed conduct, and it superseded several earlier informal opinions (CI-247, CI-263, CI-517, CI-662, CI-681, CI-1133).
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1990 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 departing lawyer send announcements to clients of the former firm, not just to the lawyer's own clients?
A: The opinion concluded yes. It saw no authority to keep limiting announcements to the lawyer's personal clients, so long as the announcement is a permissible MRPC 7.1 communication and not a solicitation.
Q: Does it matter whether the departing lawyer was an associate or a partner?
A: Per the opinion, no. The Committee declined to continue the earlier distinction that gave partners more latitude than associates for the recipients of announcements.
Q: What can the announcement say?
A: The opinion concluded the announcement may state the lawyer's new association, address, and phone number, but must comply with MRPC 7.1 and must not be false or misleading, compare lawyers' services, create an unreasonable expectation of results, or urge the client to hire or fire anyone.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets MRPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and MRPC 7.3 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation). It treats a neutral announcement of a lawyer's new practice as permissible advertising under MRPC 7.1, distinct from prohibited solicitation, and applies that to the recipients who may receive it.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MRPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications about the lawyer's services)
- MRPC 7.3 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation)
Other opinions cited:
- CI-247, CI-263, CI-517, CI-662, CI-681, CI-1133 (superseded): earlier limits on announcements by departing associates and partners
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 99-414: Ethical Obligations When Changing Firms
- Mich Ethics Op. RI-110: Hearing Officer in Private Practice
- Mich Ethics Op. RI-200: Affiliated Law Firms
Source
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
RI-49
May 11, 1990
SYLLABUS
A lawyer who has left a law firm for other private practice may send announcements to clients of the former firm indicating the lawyer's new association, address and phone number.
References: MRPC 7.1, 7.3. CI-247, CI-263, CI-517, CI-662, CI-681 and CI-1133 are superseded.
TEXT
A salaried associate lawyer currently employed in a professional corporation is contemplating leaving the firm to open a solo practice. After leaving the firm the lawyer wishes to mail announcements to clients whom the lawyer considers to be the lawyer's own clients, but whom the former professional corporation considers to be its clients. There is no agreement between the lawyer and the firm regarding the clients, although the lawyer was responsible for bringing the clients to the firm, billed the clients and collected all monies due, and supervised and delegated all legal work for those clients.
The communication which the lawyer intends to send announces the formation of the lawyer's law practice, identifies firms of which the lawyer shall be of counsel, and provides the address and phone number of the new firm. The lawyer asks to whom the announcement may be sent.
Determining whether the client "belongs" to the departing lawyer or to the firm is a question of fact. "If it is not clear that a client retained a lawyer personally, and not the firm, it should be assumed that the firm was retained," CI-263.
Former opinions have held that a departing lawyer may generally send announcements to individual clients of the lawyer, but not clients of the firm, i.e., those with whom the departing lawyer had no personal relation. CI-681, CI-247. In CI-1133 the Committee held that a departing associate could not send announcements to clients of the firm even if the departing lawyer had substantial personal contact with the client, unless the clients were "clearly his/her clients and not clients of the firm." A departing partner was allowed more latitude in sending announcements to former clients with whom the partner had significant personal contact, although the announcement could not indicate a willingness to continue representing the client, the partner's expertise, or the procedure for discharging the firm [CI-517, CI-662, CI-681].
It appears that under MRPC 7.1 and 7.3, a departing lawyer, whether associate or partner, may advise a client by phone, in-person, or in writing, that the lawyer is leaving a firm, if there is no solicitation. The content of the announcement must comply with MRPC 7.1, and may not be false, fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, compare lawyer services, or give an unreasonable expectation of results that may be achieved. Such a statement, whether written or verbal, as long as it does not ask the client to hire, fire, or make a decision, constitutes permissible advertising under MRPC 7.1.
The communication proposed by the inquirer is not solicitation, does not urge the recipient to recontact the lawyer, and provides no information other than the current location and professional relationship of the departing lawyer. We see no authority for continuing the distinction between departing
associates and departing partners, with regard to the persons to whom MRPC 7.1 communications may be sent. The departing associate may send the announcement indicated to clients of the former firm. The Committee emphasizes that it is not authorized to express any opinion concerning the legal consequences, if any, of the inquirer's proposed conduct.
Opinions CI-263, CI-247, CI-517, CI-662, CI-681 and CI-1133 are superseded.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1990 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.