May a lawyer run a for-profit corporation that puts on public educational programs about the law, advertise the participating attorneys, and represent attendees afterward?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry asked whether an attorney could organize and operate a for-profit corporation to provide public programs about "the law, the legal process, and intelligent selection of counsel," whether the names of the participating attorneys could be advertised in print media, and whether attorneys who lectured could accept employment from individuals attending the programs.
The Committee traced the change in the law on lawyer advertising and solicitation over the prior decade. It noted that in 1969 it had held lawyer participation in television and radio "call-in" programs improper (Opinion 148, 92 N.J.L.J. 184 (1969)), but that in 1981, guided by Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 437 U.S. 350 (1976), it reconsidered and held in Opinion 480, 107 N.J.L.J. 330 (1981), that it was not improper for an attorney guest panelist to answer legal questions from a television audience, while continuing the stricture against accepting a retainer in response to a communication from a member of the audience. It then pointed to revised DR 2-102(A), effective January 16, 1984, permitting a lawyer to advertise services through public media in a dignified manner, and to DR 2-103, which permitted a lawyer to initiate personal contact with a prospective client under specified conditions and limitations (the solicitation must be dignified, free of coercion or duress, and not concern a specific event for pecuniary gain).
The Committee concluded that advertisement of the contemplated programs in print media may be done and that attorneys who participate as lecturers may accept employment from individuals in attendance. Because the proposed activity could lead to abuse unless carefully carried on, the Committee added that it offered guidelines, which it stated were not intended to be all-inclusive.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it analyzes the now-superseded Disciplinary Rules (DR 2-101, DR 2-102, DR 2-103) that have since been replaced by RPC 7.1 through 7.3. 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 for-profit company offering public legal-education programs?
A: Yes. The opinion treated the activity as a form of permissible advertising and concluded the programs and their print advertising were not improper.
Q: Could the participating attorneys be named in the advertising?
A: Yes. The opinion concluded advertisement of the contemplated programs in print media, including the participating attorneys, may be done, citing the post-Bates revisions to the advertising rules.
Q: Could a lecturer represent someone who attended a program?
A: Yes. The opinion concluded attorneys who participate as lecturers may accept employment from individuals in attendance, subject to guidelines and the limits on solicitation in the then-current rules.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the lawyer advertising and solicitation rules, set out at the time in DR 2-101, DR 2-102(A), and DR 2-103 and now found in RPC 7.2 (advertising) and RPC 7.3 (solicitation of clients), against the backdrop of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 437 U.S. 350 (1976). It marks the Committee's move away from its earlier prohibition on lawyer participation in broadcast "call-in" programs.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.2 / NJ RPC 7.2 (advertising of legal services; formerly DR 2-101, DR 2-102)
- MR 7.3 / NJ RPC 7.3 (solicitation of clients; formerly DR 2-103)
Cases:
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 437 U.S. 350 (1976) (constitutional protection for truthful lawyer advertising)
Other opinions cited:
- NJ ACPE Opinion 148 (1969) (lawyer participation in broadcast "call-in" programs then improper)
- NJ ACPE Opinion 480 (1981) (attorney guest panelist may answer audience legal questions)
See also
- NJ ACPE Op. 548: Free Public Legal Seminars and Their Advertising
- NJ ACPE Op. 594: Advertising Through Sponsorship of Sports Teams
- NJ ACPE Op. 645: Joint Advertising and Client Referral Programs
Source
- Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp540-1.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.
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.