Can a lawyer advertise that he represents only poor people at reduced fees where the county has no free legal services?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked how far he could go in advertising that he represents only poor persons, noting that his county made no provision for free legal services and that he intended to charge fees at only a fraction of the minimum scheduled rates.

The Committee answered that any such advertising would violate former Canon 27, now DR 2-102. Drawing on ABA Opinion 191 (1939), it explained that there is no impropriety in a lawyer accepting employment and limiting his charge to the client's ability to pay; the vice is the solicitation, through advertisement, of professional employment on behalf of specifically named lawyers. By contrast, ABA Opinion 227 (1941) approved a local bar association making known the general "method and purpose" of a lawyer-referral plan for low-income persons, because it involved no solicitation for any individual lawyer, was supervised by the bar association, and did not advertise the panel members' names. The Committee concluded that the inquirer is bound to observe DR 2-101 (publicity in general) and DR 2-102 (professional notices, letterheads, offices, and law lists).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. Lawyer-advertising restrictions of this kind were substantially changed after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and later rule revisions; lawyer communications about services are now governed by RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer charge reduced fees based on a client's means?

A: Yes. The Committee said there is no impropriety in limiting a charge to the client's ability to pay; the problem was the advertising, not the reduced fee.

Q: Why couldn't the lawyer advertise that he serves only the poor?

A: Because, under ABA Opinion 191, the vice is soliciting professional employment for a specifically named lawyer through advertisement, which DR 2-102 prohibits.

Q: Was any low-income legal-services publicity allowed?

A: Yes, of a different kind. ABA Opinion 227 approved a bar-association-supervised referral plan publicizing only the plan's general method and purpose, with no individual solicitation and no panel-member names.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101 (publicity) and DR 2-102 (professional notices) to a solo lawyer's proposed low-income advertising. In current New Jersey terms, lawyer communications about services are governed by RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27, now DR 2-101 and DR 2-102, as in effect 1972; now MR 7.1 / 7.2 and NJ RPC 7.1 / 7.2

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion 191 (1939): solicitation by named lawyers improper even at reduced fees
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion 227 (1941): bar-supervised referral plan publicity permitted

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 242: A Professional Announcement Offering to Trace Heirs
• NJ ACPE Op. 244: A Lawyer Campaigning for Office in a Service Organization
• NJ ACPE Op. 257: A Lawyer's Biographical Sketch on Published Articles

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp238-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

95 N.J.L.J. 410, April 27, 1972

OPINION 238

Advertising Services for Low Income Persons

This inquirer requests an opinion as to the extent to which an attorney may "advertise" that he represents only "poor persons." He says that the county in which he practices makes no provision for free legal services. The inquirer does intend to charge fees for his services, but at "only a fraction of minimum scheduled rates."

It has been settled that any advertising by such a lawyer would be violative of former Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27 presently DR 2-102. A.B.A. Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 191 (1939) dealt with a plan by a group of lawyers to solicit professional employment at reduced rates from persons unable to pay the usual and ordinary fees. The solicitation included the names of the lawyers in the group.

The opinion states:

There is no impropriety in a lawyer accepting employment and limiting his charge for services rendered to the ability of the client to pay therefor. The vice in the proposed plan is the solicitation through advertisement of professional employment in behalf of specifically named lawyers.

American Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 227 (1941) lays down the rules by which a local bar association properly may make known the general "method and purpose" of a lawyer referral plan to provide competent legal services to persons in low income groups at fees within their ability to pay. In approving such a plan it was stressed that no solicitation for any individual lawyer was involved, it was supervised by the local bar association, and there was no advertising of names of the lawyers constituting the panel.

It is our opinion, therefore, that the inquirer is bound to observe the rules contained in DR 2-101 relating to publicity in general and DR 2-102 relating to professional notices, letterheads, offices and law lists.