Can a Mississippi lawyer mail a newsletter to clients and the public and hold educational legal seminars without violating the advertising rules?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked two questions: whether a lawyer may send a newsletter to agricultural clients about federal programs, bankruptcy, and related legal topics, and whether a lawyer may hold or take part in an educational seminar (alone or with a lending institution) about FmHA guaranteed agricultural loans and related legal matters, including who may be invited and what form the invitation may take.

On the newsletter, the opinion noted the rules do not specifically address newsletters but that Rules 7.1 through 7.5 apply. It concluded a lawyer may mail and distribute a newsletter to clients and members of the general public on various legal matters, provided it is not false, deceptive, or misleading under Rule 7.1, does not create unjustified expectations, and does not falsely imply the distributing lawyer authored content he did not write. The opinion read Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), to mean a state may not categorically prohibit truthful, non-deceptive mailings to prospective clients known to need legal services, and concluded a compliant newsletter may go to clients, potential clients, and the general public even if the lawyer knows the recipients need specific legal services.

On the seminar, the opinion concluded a lawyer may ethically hold or participate in an educational seminar on legal topics for clients, potential clients, and the public. While the lawyer is not prohibited from accepting employment generated by the seminar, the lawyer may not directly solicit business at the seminar from potential clients known to need specific legal services. The opinion stated the format, content, and any invitation should be dignified and comply with Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5.

In practice

Under this opinion, distributing a newsletter on legal topics to clients, potential clients, and the general public is permitted, provided the newsletter complies with Rule 7.1 (not false, deceptive, or misleading; no unjustified expectations) and the other advertising rules, and does not falsely imply the lawyer authored content he did not write. Per the opinion, a compliant newsletter may be sent even to recipients the lawyer knows need specific legal services, following Shapero.

The opinion holds that a lawyer may also hold or participate in educational seminars for clients, potential clients, and the public, and may accept employment that results, but may not directly solicit business at the seminar from people known to need specific legal services. The analysis turns on keeping the newsletter and seminar (and any invitation) within Rules 7.1 through 7.5 and avoiding direct in-person solicitation barred by Rule 7.3.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer send a newsletter to clients and the general public?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded a lawyer may distribute a newsletter on legal matters to clients, potential clients, and the public, provided it complies with Rule 7.1 and the other advertising rules.

Q: Can the newsletter go to people the lawyer knows need specific legal services?

A: Yes. Relying on Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, the opinion concluded a compliant, truthful, non-deceptive newsletter may be sent even when the lawyer knows the recipients need specific legal services.

Q: Can a lawyer hold an educational seminar and accept the business it generates?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded a lawyer may hold or participate in an educational seminar and is not prohibited from accepting resulting employment, but may not directly solicit business at the seminar from people known to need specific legal services.

Q: What rules govern the newsletter and seminar invitation?

A: The opinion concluded both, and any invitation, must be dignified and comply with Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5, including the bar on false or misleading content and on improper solicitation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Mississippi Rules 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), 7.2 (advertising), 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients), 7.4 (communication of fields of practice), and 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), corresponding to Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. It read Rule 7.1 to bar false, deceptive, or misleading content and unjustified expectations, and applied the constitutional limit recognized in Shapero to the question of who may receive the newsletter.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 7.1 (false, deceptive, or misleading communications) (cf. Model Rule 7.1).
• MRPC 7.2 (advertising) (cf. Model Rule 7.2).
• MRPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients) (cf. Model Rule 7.3).
• MRPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice).
• MRPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads).

Cases:

• Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466, 108 S. Ct. 1916, 100 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1988), holding a state may not categorically prohibit truthful, non-deceptive targeted-mail solicitation of prospective clients known to need legal services.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Opinions 210 and 213 (lawyer communications about new legal developments).
• Mississippi Ethics Opinion 146 (direct contact and solicitation through a firm brochure).
• Alabama Ethics Opinions 86-27 and 434; Maryland 81-36 and 86-48; New Jersey 548; Illinois 81-29 and 81-30; Wisconsin 80-19; Ohio 36; Virginia 856; Massachusetts 86-3 (lawyer participation in public legal seminars).

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 175: Distributing Informational Cards Through a Union
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 163: 'No Recovery, No Fee' Advertising
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 216: In-Person Solicitation Through a Prepaid Legal Services Plan

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/156/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1044/et_op_156-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 156

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED December 02, 1988

AMENDED April 06, 2013

The Ethics Committee of The Mississippi Bar has been asked to render an opinion on the following questions:

(1) Is it ethical, and if so, under what circumstances, can a lawyer send out a client newsletter to his agricultural clients concerning rules and regulations, etc., on federal programs, bankruptcy, and other legally related fields.

(2) Is it ethical, and under what circumstances, may a lawyer hold, or be a part of, an educational seminar, either alone, or in conjunction with a lending institution, concerning FmHA guaranteed agricultural loans, requirement therefor, ideas on applications and how to obtain said loans, and any other related legal matters. Further, who can be invited to such a seminar and what form can the invitation take?

Newsletter

The Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct do not specifically deal with the ethical propriety of publishing and distributing a newsletter; however, Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 would be applicable to such an activity.

Subject to the provisions of those rules; the Committee concludes that a lawyer may mail and distribute a newsletter to clients and to members of the general public concerning various legal matters. Such a newsletter should not contain information that is false, deceptive, or misleading; and under Rule 7.1, a newsletter would be misleading if it (a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading or (b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the rules of professional conduct or other law. Additionally, a newsletter should not falsely state or imply that the distributing lawyer authored the newsletter when in fact he did not. See Alabama Ethics Opinion 86-27. A newsletter would also be subject to all of the provisions of Rule 7.2 on advertising. See also Rule 7.4 concerning communications about fields of practice.

We next turned to the question of to whom the newsletter may be sent. Although the request referred to a "client newsletter" and stated that it would be sent to the lawyer's "agricultural clients", it is not clear that the newsletter would be sent only to current clients. The Committee therefore assumes that the lawyer may also desire to send the newsletter to potential clients and other members of the general public. For many years, it has been permissible for a lawyer to initiate communications with clients concerning new developments in the law. See ABA Opinions 210 and 213. Recently, in Mississippi Ethics Opinion 146, this Committee allowed direct contact with and solicitation of potential clients through a firm brochure. That opinion concerned potential clients not known to need specific legal services. In Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 , 108 S. Ct. 1916, 100 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1988), however, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a state may not categorically prohibit lawyers from soliciting business for pecuniary gain by mailing truthful and non-deceptive letters to prospective clients known to the lawyer to need legal services. Thus, this Committee concludes that a newsletter complying with the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct may be distributed to clients, potential clients, and members of the general public, even if the lawyer knows that the recipients need specific legal services.

Educational Seminar

Education of the public about legal topics is desirable. For many years lawyers have participated in educational seminars. Many bar associations have approved participation by lawyers in seminars for lay persons on specific areas of the law. See, e.g., Maryland Ethics Opinions 81-36 and 86-48, New Jersey Ethics Opinion 548, Alabama Ethics Opinion 434, Illinois Ethics Opinions 81-29 and 81-30, Wisconsin Ethics Opinion 80-19, Ohio Ethics Opinion 36, Virginia Ethics Opinion 856, Massachusetts Ethics Opinion 86-3.

The Committee concludes that a lawyer may ethically hold, or participate in, an educational seminar on legal topics for clients, potential clients, and members of the general public. Although a lawyer is not prohibited from accepting employment generated from the seminar, he may not directly solicit business at the seminar from potential clients known to need specific legal services. The format and content of the seminar, together with any invitation for the seminar, should be dignified and comply with the requirements of Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.