Under this rescinded Nebraska opinion, could a lawyer contract with a federal credit union to offer limited-fee consultations to members?

Plain-English summary

A federal credit union proposed telling members that they could obtain a participating attorney's contact information. The attorney would charge stated amounts for brief consultations or a general legal check-up, and a member needing more work could retain that attorney on an agreed fee or choose another lawyer.

Former DR 2-103(D)(4) permitted a lawyer to be recommended, employed, or paid by a bona fide organization furnishing legal services to members if the detailed conditions in the rule were satisfied and the organization did not interfere with independent professional judgment.

The committee followed ABA Informal Opinion 1313, which found a similar plan consistent with the former Code but limited promotion to an appropriate and dignified notice to credit-union members.

The committee concluded that the proposed arrangement was permitted only if every detail met former DR 2-103(D)(4) and the publicity limitation was observed. Nebraska Opinion 86-2 later expressly rescinded Opinion 76-12.

Currency note

The Nebraska Supreme Court Lawyers' Advisory Committee rescinded this opinion in 1986 through Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 86-2. Opinion 76-12 also predates Nebraska's adoption of the 2005 Rules of Professional Conduct. Treat this page only as historical context and consult the later opinion and current rules.

Common questions

Q: What services and fees did the proposed plan cover?

A: It offered brief consultations for $7.50 or $15 and a $25 general legal check-up covering subjects selected by the member.

Q: Could a member choose another lawyer for additional work?

A: Yes. A member who wanted additional services could choose any other lawyer or agree in advance on a fee with the participating attorney.

Q: Could the program be advertised to the public?

A: The opinion adopted ABA Informal Opinion 1313's limitation to an appropriate and dignified notice of the details to credit-union members.

Q: Does Opinion 76-12 remain committee guidance?

A: No. Opinion 86-2 expressly rescinded it.

Background and rules framework

Former DR 2-103(D)(4) governed legal-service arrangements offered through bona fide member organizations. Its conditions addressed nonprofit operation of the legal services, lawyer independence, client identity and choice of counsel, compliance with governing law, and reports to disciplinary authorities.

Citations and references

Former Nebraska Code of Professional Responsibility:

• DR 2-103(D)(4)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion 1313 (January 27, 1975)
• Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 86-2, rescinding this opinion

See also

• Nebraska Ethics Op. 86-2: Prepaid legal-service plans
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 81-12: Free-will referrals
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 12-03: Prepaid services through Groupon

Source

• Landing page: Nebraska lawyer ethics opinions archive
• Original PDF: Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 76-12
• Rescinding opinion: Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 86-2

Original opinion text

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

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 76-12

IT IS NOT IMPROPER FOR AN ATTORNEY TO CONTRACT
WITH A FEDERAL CREDIT UNION TO FURNISH LEGAL
SERVICES TO ITS MEMBERS UNDER THE FOLLOWING
TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT:

THE CREDIT UNION WILL ANNOUNCE TO ITS MEMBERS
THAT ANY OF THEM MAY CALL THE CREDIT UNION TO
OBTAIN THE ATTORNEY'S NAME AND TELEPHONE
NUMBER IN ORDER TO THEN CALL HIM TO ARRANGE A
PRIVATE APPOINTMENT WITH HIM TO DISCUSS A
LEGAL MATTER. THE ATTORNEY WILL CHARGE $7.50
FOR A 15-MINUTE CONSULTATION AND $15.00 FOR A
30 MINUTE CONSULTATION. ADDITIONALLY, FOR A FEE
OF $25.00 THE ATTORNEY WILL AGREE TO GIVE A
"GENERAL LEGAL CHECK-UP" ON SUCH SUBJECTS
REQUESTED BY THE MEMBER AS A REVIEW OF HIS
PRESENT WILL OR A DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE
NEED FOR ONE; THE ADVISABILITY OF SELECTING A
GUARDIAN FOR MINOR CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS
ARE DECEASED; REVIEW AND ADVICE AS TO EXISTING
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SUPPORT ORDERS; REVIEW OF
THE PRESENT METHOD OF HOLDING TITLE TO REAL
AND PERSONAL PROPERTY; REVIEW OF PRESENT LIFE
INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

IF, AS THE RESULT OF THE ABOVE, THE MEMBER FEELS
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LEGAL SERVICES TO BE
PERFORMED IN A PARTICULAR AREA, HE HAS THE
OPTION TO SEEK ANY OTHER LAWYER HE WISHES OR
TO ARRANGE WITH THE ATTORNEY TO PERFORM THE
SERVICES ON A FEE BASIS TO BE AGREED UPON IN
ADVANCE.

FACTS

The facts submitted by the inquiring attorney are set
forth in the synopsis above.
 DISCUSSION

A brief historical discussion on the question of group
legal services may be helpful. Prior to adoption of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, old Canon 35
appeared to prohibit such arrangements as it
disapproved of attorneys making contracts with groups
such as a credit union to render legal services to its
members in respect to their individual affairs. When the
Code of Professional Responsibility was adopted by the
American Bar Association in or about 1969, it changed
this rule to permit such an arrangement in DR 2-
1030)(5), provided certain conditions were met.

When the Code of Professional Responsibility was first
presented to the Nebraska Supreme Court in 1970, the
Court adopted the Code as of May 1, 1970, in its
entirety except that it specifically excluded DR 2-
103(D)(5), thus making that section inapplicable in this
state. On May 3, 1973, however, the Court entered a
further order adopting this particular section.

In 1974, Section DR 2-103(D) was amended by the
American Bar Association so that it presently reads as
hereinafter set forth, and as of September 1, 1975, the
Nebraska Supreme Court by order re-adopted the Code
as in effect March 1, 1975, so that we are now governed
by it:

"DR 2-103(D) . . . However, this does not prohibit a lawyer or his partner or associate or any other lawyer affiliated with him or his firm from being recommended, employed or paid by, or cooperating with, one of the following offices or organizations that promote the use of his services or those of his partner or associate or any other lawyer affiliated with him or his firm if there is no interference with the exercise of independent professional judgment in behalf of his client:

....
 (4) Any bona fide organization that
recommends, furnishes or pays for legal
services to its members or beneficiaries
provided the following conditions are
satisfied:

(a) Such organization, including any affiliate, is so organized and operated that no profit is derived by it from the rendition of legal services by lawyers, and that, if the organization is organized for profit, the legal services are not rendered by lawyers employed, directed, supervised or selected by it except in connection with matters where such organization bears ultimate liability of its member 6r beneficiary.

(b) Neither the lawyer, nor his partner,
nor associate, nor any other lawyer affiliated
with him or his firm, nor any non-lawyer,
shall have initiated or promoted such
organization for the primary purpose of
providing a financial or other benefit to such
lawyer, partner, associate or affiliated
lawyer.

(c) Such organization is not operated for the purpose of procuring legal work or financial benefit for any lawyer as a private practitioner outside of the legal services program of the organization.

(d) The member or beneficiary to whom the legal services are furnished, and not such organization, is recognized as the client of the lawyer in the matter.

(e) Any member or beneficiary who is entitled to have legal services furnished or paid for by the organization may, if such member or beneficiary, so desires, select counsel other than that furnished, selected or approved by the organization for the particular matter involved; and the legal service plan of such organization provides appropriate relief for any member or beneficiary who asserts a claim that representation by counsel furnished, selected or approved would be unethical, improper or inadequate under the circumstances of the matter involved and the plan provides an appropriate procedure for seeking such relief.

(f) The lawyer does not know or have cause to know that such organization is in violation of applicable laws, rules of court and other legal requirements that govern its legal service operations.

(g) Such organization has filed with the appropriate disciplinary authority at least annually a report with respect to its legal service plan, if any, showing its terms, its schedule of benefits, its subscription charges, agreements with counsel, and financial results of its legal service activities or, if it has failed to do so, the lawyer does not know or have cause to know of such failure."

The Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
of the ABA has had occasion to pass on the propriety of
a plan such as is being discussed herein. In Inf. Opinion
1313 rendered January 27, 1975, it concluded that,
"The proposal above outlined would not seem to
contravene any of the Ethical Considerations or
Disciplinary Rules set forth in the American Bar
Association's Code of Professional Responsibility.
However, no one should advertise the existence of the
program, with the exception of an appropriate and
dignified notice of the details to the members of the
Credit Union. . . ."

CONCLUSION

This Committee has reached a similar conclusion. We
hold that based upon the facts as heretofore outlined,
DR 2-103(D)(4) permits you to enter into such an
arrangement with the Federal Credit Union. The plan in
all of its details must meet the qualifications set forth in
this section and the admonition as to publicity of the
program as mentioned in Opinion 1313 must be heeded.
The responsibility will be yours of insuring that in
performing under the program your conduct complies in
every respect with the high standards required by the
Code of a lawyer in his practice.

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 76-12