Can a Michigan law firm that co-sponsors a seminar set up a booth outside the room to market the firm to attendees?

Plain-English summary

A law firm planned to co-sponsor a seminar with departments of a local hospital, paying for the seminar room and providing one of its lawyers as a speaker. The audience would include other lawyers, health care providers, insurance company representatives, and social workers. The firm asked whether it could set up a booth outside the presentation room to market the firm.

The Committee applied MRPC 7.1, which permits a lawyer to use any form of public communication that is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. Drawing on RI-81, which had allowed a firm to present a free seminar where attendees could form a lawyer-client relationship only by independently initiating contact afterward, the Committee reasoned that because the seminar audience was largely other professionals rather than potential clients, the danger of overreaching or undue influence associated with in-person solicitation was even lower. The Committee concluded that even if potential clients attended, marketing that complied with MRPC 7.1 would not violate MRPC 7.3.

The Committee held the booth was not prohibited so long as the attendees were persons who might in general find the firm's services useful, attendees were free to stop at the booth or walk away at any time, the information at the booth did not contravene MRPC 7.1, and attendees who wished to retain the firm were advised to contact the office for an appointment. The opinion also superseded CI-1042 (which had barred a lawyer from emphasizing experience or reputation in a seminar) because MRPC 7.1(b) and (c) allow factually substantiated statements about the lawyer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 law firm set up a marketing booth at a seminar it sponsors?

A: Per the opinion, yes. The Committee held a booth outside the seminar room was not prohibited where the booth information complied with MRPC 7.1, attendees were free to stop or walk away, and those wanting to retain the firm were told to contact the office for an appointment.

Q: Does staffing a seminar booth count as prohibited in-person solicitation under MRPC 7.3?

A: The opinion concluded it did not on these facts. The Committee reasoned that because the audience was largely other professionals and attendees freely chose whether to approach the booth, the overreaching danger behind the in-person solicitation rule was even less than in RI-81, and marketing complying with MRPC 7.1 did not violate MRPC 7.3.

Q: Can a lawyer describe their experience and background when presenting at a seminar?

A: The opinion concluded that factually substantiated statements about a lawyer are allowed under MRPC 7.1(b) and (c), and on that basis it superseded CI-1042, which had directed a lawyer not to emphasize experience or reputation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets MRPC 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services; the Model Rule 7.1 counterpart), which bars false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive communications, and MRPC 7.3 (Direct Contact With Prospective Clients; Model Rule 7.3), which restricts solicitation for pecuniary gain of a prospective client with no family or prior professional relationship. The Committee read "solicit" using the rule's own text, which excludes circulars distributed generally to persons not known to need the services but who might in general find them useful, and applied the framework of RI-81 and Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 486 US 466 (1988).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / MRPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.3 / MRPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients)

Cases:

• Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 486 US 466; 108 S Ct 1916; 100 L Ed 2d 475 (1988), targeted direct-mail solicitation

Other opinions cited:

• Michigan RI-81: free seminar where lawyer-client relationships form only by attendee-initiated contact
• Michigan CI-1042: superseded as to emphasizing a lawyer's experience or reputation

See also

• Mich Ethics Op. RI-276: Internet and Email Advertising
• Mich Ethics Op. RI-244: Direct-Mail Circular and Affordable Fees
• Mich Ethics Op. RI-49: Announcements After Leaving a Firm

Source

• Landing page: https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions?OpinionID=969&Type=6

Original opinion text

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

RI-99

September 20, 1991

SYLLABUS

A law firm co-sponsoring a seminar with a local hospital may set up a booth outside the seminar room to market the law firm, as long as the information communicated about the firm does not violate ethics rules, seminar attendees have the free option to stop at the booth or walk away, and attendees who wish to retain the firm's services are advised to contact the law firm office to set up an appointment.

References: MRPC 7.1, 7.3; RI-81. CI-1042 is superseded.

TEXT

A law firm plans to co-sponsor a seminar with departments of a local hospital. Other lawyers, health care providers, insurance company representatives and social workers would be invited to attend. The law firm will be paying for the seminar room at a local hotel and one of its lawyers will be a speaker. The lawyer asks whether a booth may be set up outside the presentation room to market the law firms' services and what references may be made to the lawyer's background and professional experience in the seminar presentation.

MRPC 7.1 states:

"A lawyer may, on the lawyer's own behalf, on behalf of a partner or associate, or on behalf of any other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer's law firm, use or participate in the use of any form of public communication that is not false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive. A communication shall not:

-
"(a) contain a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omit a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;

"(b) be likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or state or imply that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

"(c) compare the lawyers' services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated."

In RI-81 the Committee held that a law firm which represented several allegedly defrauded claimants in an investment venture could present a free seminar for other similarly situated individuals where the attendees would be allowed to form lawyer-client relationships with the firm only by independently initiated phone or written communication after the seminar.

To the extent the targeted audience in this inquiry is other professionals and not potential clients, the possibility of "overreaching or undue influence" on potential clients which is the perceived danger of in-person solicitation is even less of a danger than that permitted under RI-81. Even if potential clients attend the seminar, if the proposed marketing complies with MRPC 7.1, it does not violate MRPC 7.3. MRPC 7.3 states in part:

"(a) lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. The term 'solicit' includes contact in person, by telephone or telegraph, by letter or other writing, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient, but does not include letters addressed or advertising circulars distributed generally to persons not known to need legal services of the kind provided by the lawyer in a particular matter, but who are so situated that they might in general find such services useful, nor does the term 'solicit' include 'sending truthful and nondeceptive letters to potential clients known to face particular legal problems' as elucidated in Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 486 US 466; 108 S Ct 1916; 100 L Ed 2d 475 (1988)." Emphasis added.

To the extent seminar attendees are persons "so situated that they might in general" find the lawyer's services useful, to the extent that attendees have the free choice of stopping at the booth or not and to walk away at any time, that the information provided at the booth does not contravene MRPC 7.1, and that attendees who wish to retain the firm's services are advised to contact the office for an appointment, the seminar booth is not prohibited.

CI-1042 held that a lawyer may accept professional employment arising out of participation in a seminar so long as the lawyer does not emphasize the lawyer's experience or reputation. Since MRPC 7.1(b) and (c) allow certain statements about the lawyer if they are factually substantiated, CI-1042 is superseded.