Does a chiropractor's mailing program to recruit patients for a lawyer create an ethics problem?

Plain-English summary

A chiropractor proposed that the lawyer provide legal services to patients contacted through the chiropractor's continuing direct-mail program. The proposed letter did not require a patient to retain either professional to obtain the other's services. No referral fee or kickback would be paid, but the chiropractor used a voluntary lien that also assigned benefits.

The answer says the arrangement, including the lien, appeared to involve a conflict of interest under Rule 4-1.7(b). It also says the arrangement raised a Rule 4-7.3(c) issue because the lawyer would not independently determine whether each solicitation letter was appropriate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, before Missouri's 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did the absence of a referral fee resolve the ethics concerns?

A: No. The opinion still found an apparent conflict in the arrangement, including the lien, and a problem with review of the mailings.

Q: What did the opinion say about each direct-mail solicitation?

A: It identified a problem because the lawyer would not independently determine whether each letter was appropriate under Rule 4-7.3(c).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 4-1.7(b) to the proposed chiropractor-lawyer arrangement and Rule 4-7.3(c) to the lawyer's role in reviewing targeted mailings.

Citations and references

Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 4-1.7(b)
• Rule 4-7.3(c)

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 980039: Referral Service Calls
• Missouri Informal Op. 20040033: Referral Fee

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/980026/
• Rule revision reference: Missouri Informal Opinion 20030007

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney has been approached by a chiropractor with a business proposition that involves Attorney providing legal services for patients solicited by the chiropractor by an on-going direct mail solicitation program operated by the chiropractor. The letter sent does not suggest that the patient must retain Attorney as a condition of receiving treatment by the chiropractor, nor does it suggest that the patient must retain the chiropractor as a condition of retaining Attorney. No fee or kick-back would be paid to the chiropractor by Attorney, but the chiropractor does use a voluntary lien that also serves as an assignment of benefits form. Is this arrangement ethical?
ANSWER: The arrangement, including the lien, Attorney has described appears to involve a conflict of interest in violation of Rule 4–1.7(b). This arrangement would also be a problem because Attorney would not independently determine whether each solicitation letter is appropriate in light of Rule 4–7.3(c).