Can a lawyer operate a private lawyer referral service with only one participating attorney, or with attorneys who only share advertising costs?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer proposed to operate a private lawyer referral service while he was the only participating attorney, expecting a lawyer in an adjoining county to join later and pay a prorated share of advertising for his own county, with the proposing lawyer covering all other expenses until more attorneys joined. The opinion addressed whether the service could begin operating and what made an attorney a participant.

The opinion concluded the service could not begin with only one participant. It reasoned that the concept of a private lawyer referral service implies the participation of more than one attorney, so advertising a one-participant enterprise would be misleading and violate the then-current Rule 2.1; the proposing lawyer therefore could not commence operation until at least one other attorney agreed to participate. The opinion further concluded that to fully participate, an affiliated attorney must share not only the cost of advertising but also the cost of operating the referral service, so a lawyer who did not contribute to the operating cost could not be viewed as a full participant.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before North Carolina's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it cites the rule numbering then in effect. Subsequent rule amendments or 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer run a referral service while the only participant?

A: No. The opinion concluded advertising a one-participant referral service would be misleading under the then-current Rule 2.1, so the lawyer could not begin operating until at least one other attorney joined.

Q: What made an attorney a full participant in the service?

A: The opinion concluded a participant had to share the cost of operating the referral service, not just the cost of advertising; an attorney who did not contribute to operating costs could not be a full participant.

Background and rules framework

At the time, the opinion applied the prohibition on misleading communications about a lawyer's services, then Rule 2.1, to the advertising and structure of a private lawyer referral service. In current numbering the subject matter corresponds to Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.2 (advertising and referral arrangements).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• N.C. Rule 2.1 (then in effect): misleading communications
• Current counterparts: Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Model Rule 7.2 (advertising)

See also

• NC State Bar 2003 FEO 3: Advocates Forum Ads
• ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/rpc-94/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

Lawyer A wishes to operate a private lawyer referral service. Although Lawyer A is presently the only attorney participating, Lawyer A believes that Lawyer B, who resides and practices in an adjoining county, will also choose to participate. Lawyer A indicates that Lawyer B would be expected to pay a prorated fee for expenses relating to advertising in his county of residence only. Lawyer A will pay all other expenses until other attorneys become participants. Lawyer A further indicates that any attorney who wants to do a newspaper advertisement particular to his or her county or area will be expected to bear those costs alone. Participating attorneys will be expected to share the cost of radio or television advertising in their geographical areas on a prorata basis.

Opinion:

Implicit in the concept of a private lawyer referral service is the participation of more than one attorney. Any advertising of such an enterprise having only one participant would be misleading and in violation of Rule 2.1. For that reason Attorney A may not commence operation of the lawyer referral service until at least one other attorney has agreed to participate.

In order to fully participate in a private lawyer referral service, an affiliated attorney must share not only the cost of advertising but also the cost of operating the referral service. For this reason as well, Lawyer A may not operate a lawyer referral service with an attorney who does not contribute to the cost of operating the referral service and therefore cannot be viewed as a full participant in the service.