Can a lawyer represent a group legal-services plan that insurance brokers set up for their clients, and the subscribers who use it?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer had been approached by insurance brokers to form an organization, described as a group legal-services plan, to be used by the brokers for the benefit of their clients. Three different approaches were presented, but the Committee was asked only whether, if one of the proposed organizations were created, the inquirer could represent it and the subscribers, not to pass on the projects themselves.

It was represented that the brokers, not counsel or his office, had initiated the concept; that the organization would not be for pecuniary profit but only a service organization for the brokers' clients; and that after an initial conference, a client who continued to seek advice would become the inquirer's client without further contact with the broker.

The inquirer stated that he intended to submit a plan to the Supreme Court as DR 2-103(D)(4)(g) required. The Committee concluded that if such a plan is submitted and approved by the Court, and counsel acts in accordance with DR 2-103, there would be no ethical problem, referring to its discussion of group legal-services plans in Opinion 383.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, 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. The group-legal-services rule it applied (DR 2-103(D)) now corresponds broadly to RPC 7.2 and RPC 5.4, and the registration mechanics have since changed. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the lawyer represent the brokers' group legal-services plan?

A: Yes, conditionally. The opinion concluded there would be no ethical problem if the plan was submitted to and approved by the Supreme Court and counsel followed DR 2-103.

Q: Did it matter that the brokers initiated the plan?

A: The Committee noted that the brokers, not counsel, conceived the plan and that the client would become the lawyer's client without further broker contact, facts consistent with a permissible group plan.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-103(D)(4), which governed organizations that recommend, furnish, or pay for legal services to members, including subsection (g)'s requirement to submit the plan to the Supreme Court. In current New Jersey terms the analysis maps onto RPC 7.2 (organizations recommending a lawyer's services) and RPC 5.4 (professional independence). The Committee conditioned approval entirely on registration and compliance.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 5.4 / NJ RPC 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer); decided under former DR 2-103(D)
• MR 7.2 / NJ RPC 7.2 (organizations recommending a lawyer's services); decided under former DR 2-103(D)(4)(g)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 383, 100 N.J.L.J. 1205 (1977) (discussion of group legal-services plans)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 488: Furnishing Fee Information to a Group Legal-Services Plan
• NJ ACPE Op. 517: Group Legal-Services Plan (Elk Grove, Illinois)
• NJ ACPE Op. 481: For-Profit Referral Services and Lay-Owned Advertising Programs

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp472-1.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.

107 N.J.L.J. 127, February 12, 1981

OPINION 472

Representing Legal Services Organizations created for Insurance Brokers' Clients

The inquirer has been approached by some insurance brokers to form an organization to be used by the brokers for the benefit of their clients. It is said to be a group legal services plan. Three different approaches to the problem are presented. We are not asked to pass upon the projects themselves but only upon whether, if one of the three proposed organizations is created, the inquirer will be able to represent it and the subscribers involved.

It is represented that the concept for organization of the plan was not initiated by counsel or any member of his office but by the brokers: that the organization would not be for pecuniary profit but only as a service organization for the clients of the brokers and that after the initial conference, either in person or by phone, by the member of the organization, such client, if he continued to seek advice from the inquirer, would become the inquirer's client without further contact with the broker involved.

The inquirer says that he intends to submit a plan to the Supreme Court as required by DR 2-103(D)(4)(g). If such a plan is submitted and approved by the Court, and counsel acts in accordance with the provisions of DR 2-103, there will be no ethical problem involved. See our discussion of group legal services plans, Opinion 383, 100 N.J.L.J. 1205 (1977).