Could a Nebraska lawyer join a for-profit referral service whose name implied that participants belonged to a specialized trial-lawyer association?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ask about yours and see what the current Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer considered joining a for-profit referral program whose participating "members" pooled advertising resources. The program's name suggested an association of trial lawyers practicing in a specific field, but it imposed no admission standards.
Nebraska Opinion 87-2 had allowed participation in a compliant for-profit referral program when the lawyer gave no value for recommendations. It also placed responsibility for the program's ethics compliance on each participating lawyer.
Former DR 2-101 prohibited false or misleading advertising, DR 2-102 extended that standard to names and professional designations, and DR 2-105 restricted specialization claims.
Because the program's name implied both genuine association membership and specialist qualifications without standards supporting either implication, the committee found it misleading. Lawyers could not achieve through a referral organization what their own advertising rules prohibited.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989, before Nebraska's adoption of the 2005 Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent referral-service, advertising, specialization, certification, and firm-name rules or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. The 2005 adoption date is stated in Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 06-12.
Common questions
Q: Was every for-profit referral service prohibited?
A: No. The opinion addressed a service whose name violated the former advertising and specialization rules.
Q: What made the association claim misleading?
A: The service called participants members of a specialized trial-lawyer group despite having no admission standards.
Q: Who was responsible for the service's advertising compliance?
A: Each participating lawyer.
Q: Could the lawyer rely on the service as a separate advertiser?
A: No. The opinion said a lawyer could not circumvent a disciplinary rule through another's actions.
Background and rules framework
The former Code allowed some referral-service participation but required every name, designation, and specialization implication to be truthful and supported. Organizational advertising remained attributable to participating lawyers.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Professional Responsibility:
- DR 1-102(A)(3), DR 2-101, DR 2-102(A), and DR 2-105(A)
Other opinion cited:
- Nebraska Opinion 87-2
See also
- Nebraska Ethics Op. 89-3: For-profit referral program fees
- Nebraska Ethics Op. 95-3: For-profit Internet referral directory
- Virginia Ethics Op. 1572: For-profit nonlawyer referral service
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska lawyer ethics opinions archive
- Original PDF: Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 89-5
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 89-5
AN ATTORNEY MAY NOT ETHICALLY PARTICIPATE IN A "FOR PROFIT' LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE IF THE NAME USED BY THE REFERRAL SERVICE IMPLIES THAT PARTICIPATING ATTORNEYS ARE "MEMBERS" OF AN ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS PRACTICING IN A SPECIFIC AREA OF LAW.
FACTS
An attorney asks if he may ethically participate in a "for profit" lawyer referral program in which "members" pool their resources for advertising purposes. The name of the referral service implies that "members" belong to an association of trial lawyers practicing in a specific area of law. There are no admission standards for participating attorneys.
DISCUSSION
Opinion 87-2 held that an attorney could participate in a "for profit" lawyer referral program if the attorney does not give anything of value to the program for recommending the attorney's services and if the program is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Opinion also notes that it is the individual attorney's responsibility to assure the program's compliance with the Code.
Attorneys may not participate in false or misleading advertisements. DR 2-101. This restriction also applies to firm names, letterheads and other professional designations. DR 2-102 (A). Attorneys are also prohibited from holding themselves out to the public as specialists. DR 2-105 (A).
Since individual attorneys cannot participate in false or misleading advertisements, or, hold themselves out as specialists, attorneys banned together for advertising purposes should not be permitted to do so under the auspices of an "association". Attorneys cannot circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through the actions of another. DR 1-102 (A) (3).
It is the opinion of the Committee that the name used by the referral service violates the Code of Professional Responsibility. The name implies that "member" attorneys are specialists. In reality, there are no admission standards to become a "member" of the service. The name is therefore false and misleading.
CONCLUSION
An attorney may not ethically participate in a "for profit" lawyer referral service if the name used by the referral service implies that participating attorneys are "members" of an association of trial lawyers practicing in a specific area of law.
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 89-5
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1989. Ezel checks the current Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace