May a New Jersey lawyer hold free public legal seminars, advertise them in newspapers, and later represent people who attended?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer wished to conduct free public seminars on legal topics such as wills and estates, real estate, family law and divorce, and general law for the layman, with the lectures given by the inquirer or members and associates of his firm and a question-and-answer period in each session. He asked three things: whether it was proper to conduct the free seminars, whether it was ethical to advertise them in newspapers as conducted by a specific firm at a specific time and place, and whether members of the firm could accept employment from a participant later.

The Committee answered the first two questions in the affirmative, relying on its recent Opinion 540, which held that similar seminars conducted by a lawyer through a for-profit corporation were not improper. Although the seminars were obviously intended to provide a medium for advertising the firm, the Committee noted that such advertising is no longer improper under Bates v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 350 (1976), and later cases, and pointed to RPC 7.2 and its comments.

On the third question, the Committee concluded that accepting later employment from an attendee was also not improper, subject to the caveat that the seminar must be conducted as a public service furnished to the community by the legal profession and not used merely as a forum for soliciting clients. The Committee quoted the comment to RPC 7.2 that "the public's need to know about legal services can be fulfilled in part through advertising" while cautioning that "advertising by lawyers entails the risk of practices that are misleading or overreaching," and saw no objection to undertaking the representation if a seminar attendee elected to contact the firm.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the lawyer-advertising and solicitation rules have been amended over time. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 New Jersey lawyer hold free public seminars on legal topics?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded it is proper to conduct free seminars for the benefit of the public, following Opinion 540.

Q: Could the lawyer advertise the seminars in the newspaper by firm name?

A: Yes. The opinion held such advertising was not improper under Bates v. Arizona and RPC 7.2, and that a firm could advertise that it would conduct free seminars at a specific time and place.

Q: Could the lawyer later represent someone who attended a seminar?

A: Yes, with a caveat. The opinion concluded later employment from an attendee was proper provided the seminar was conducted as a genuine public service and not merely as a forum for soliciting clients.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the lawyer-advertising rules, RPC 7.2 (advertising of legal services) and the misleading-communication concerns reflected in RPC 7.1, against the backdrop of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 437 U.S. 350 (1976), which established that truthful lawyer advertising is constitutionally protected. It builds directly on the Committee's Opinion 540 concerning lawyer-conducted educational programs.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 / NJ RPC 7.2 (advertising of legal services)
• MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services must not be misleading)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 437 U.S. 350 (1976) (constitutional protection for truthful lawyer advertising)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 540 (lawyer-conducted educational programs through a for-profit corporation are not improper)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 540: Educational Programs Through a For-Profit Corporation
• NJ ACPE Op. 594: Advertising Through Sponsorship of Sports Teams
• NJ ACPE Op. 645: Joint Advertising and Client Referral Programs
• NJ ACPE Op. 666: Targeted Direct-Mail Solicitation for Property Tax Appeals

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp548-1.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.

114 N.J.L.J. 620, December 13, 1984

Propriety of Lawyer Conducting Free Public Seminar on Legal Topics and Advertising Same in News Media

The inquirer desires to conduct free seminars for the public on various legal topics. The latter would include wills and estates, general real estate transactions, family law and divorce, and general law for the layman. The seminars would be free and conducted by the inquirer or associates or members of his law firm. The lectures would be structured, and there would be a question and answer period in the course of each session.

The inquirer desires to know:

A) Is it proper to conduct free seminars for the benefit of the public?

B) Is it ethical to advertise in the newspapers that such free seminars will be conducted by a specific law firm at a specific time and place?

C) Would it be improper for him (and presumably, any member or associate of his firm) to accept employment from a seminar participant at a later time?

We have recently dealt with most of the inquiries in Opinion 540, 114 N.J.L.J. 387 (1984), in which we stated that similar seminars conducted by a lawyer through a for-profit corporation were not improper. In Opinion 540, we attempted to provide some guidelines in connection with such seminars. While the seminars are obviously intended to provide a medium for advertising the law firm, such advertising is not improper now under Bates v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 350 (1976), and cases on this subject decided thereafter. See also RPC 7.2 and the comments following that Rule. Thus, the answer to the first and second inquiries are in the affirmative.

As to the third question, this also is not improper, with the caveat that the seminar must be conducted as a public service being furnished to the community by the legal profession and not used merely as a forum for soliciting clients.

While the comment to RPC 7.2 states that, "the public's need to know about legal services can be fulfilled in part through advertising" it goes on to note that "nevertheless, advertising by lawyers entails the risk of practices that are misleading or overreaching." If a person who has attended one of the seminars elects to contact the inquirer or his law firm for representation, we see no objection to the inquirer undertaking the representation.