May a lawyer let his name appear on a motor club's published list of attorneys who have agreed to handle members' automobile property-damage claims?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked about the propriety of lawyers permitting their names to appear on a list published and circulated by a motor club, headed "Attorneys Who Have Agreed to Handle Automobile Property Damage Claims for Members of (name of club)," and made available to club members. The list came with a blank retainer agreement a member could sign, choosing an attorney from the list, attaching the accident report and damage estimate, and sending it to the club's local branch for referral through the club's Legal Reimbursement Department. Attorneys from twenty of the State's twenty-one counties were listed.

The Committee said that, so far as appeared, the list was not an approved law list, so it violated Canon 43 for an attorney to permit his name to appear on it, and that the heading "Attorneys Who Have Agreed to Handle" showed the attorneys knew their names would appear in the pamphlet distributed to members. It held this also violated Canon 27, because the listing became direct advertising, citing ABA Opinion 137 (1935), which found a similar insurance-underwriter practice of writing attorneys' names into policies to be unethical. The Committee distinguished Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1 (1964), and said Canon 46 did not help, because the publication was not an approved legal publication and the service offered ran from lawyer to layman rather than lawyer to lawyer. It concluded that the practice of lawyers consenting to be listed in the publication was disapproved.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in June 1965, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It applied Canon 27 (advertising), Canon 43 (approved law lists), and Canon 46 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Lawyer advertising and referral arrangements are now treated under RPC 7.1 to 7.3, and constitutional limits changed substantially after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer be listed on a motor club's roster of claim attorneys?

A: No. The Committee disapproved the practice, holding it violated Canon 43 (the list was not an approved law list) and Canon 27 (it was direct advertising).

Q: Why did the listing count as advertising?

A: The Committee reasoned that the heading "Attorneys Who Have Agreed to Handle" showed the lawyers knew their names would appear in a pamphlet distributed to club members, making the listing direct advertising under Canon 27.

Q: Did the union-referral case Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia change the result?

A: No. The Committee said it did not view the motor-club list as the type of situation considered in that case, and that Canon 46 did not help because the publication was not an approved legal publication and the service ran from lawyer to layman.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 43 (a lawyer may be listed only in an approved law list), Canon 27 (the advertising prohibition), and Canon 46 (notices of specialized service to lawyers), holding a motor club's distributed attorney list violated the first two. In current New Jersey terms, lawyer advertising and referral arrangements are governed by RPC 7.1 through 7.3.

Citations and references

Cases:

• Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1 (1964), distinguished

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27 (advertising), Canon 43 (approved law lists), Canon 46 (specialized-service notices)
• Drinker, Legal Ethics 161 et seq. (1953)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 137 (1935): an insurer's listing of selected attorneys in policies is unethical

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 200: Advertising on Christmas Cards
• NJ ACPE Op. 453: Attorneys Listing Financial Specialties in the Telephone Book
• NJ ACPE Op. 238: Advertising Services for Low-Income Persons

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp75-1.html

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

88 N.J.L.J. 357
June 3, 1965

OPINION 75

Motor Club Attorneys' List

An attorney requests an opinion concerning the propriety of attorneys permitting their names to appear on a list published and circulated by a motor club, which list is headed "Attorneys Who Have Agreed to Handle Automobile Property Damage Claims for Members of (name of club)." The list is made available to the members of the club.

The attorney poses the question because his client - a member of the club - desires to have him handle a claim rather than use the attorney whose name had been indicated by a branch office of the club.

With the list is a blank retainer agreement which the member may sign and which states in part, "Undersigned hereby retains the following attorney to collect Automobile Property Damage Claim." According to the instructions contained in the pamphlet in which the list is printed, the member may choose an attorney from the list, fill in the retainer agreement, attach it to the accident report with his estimate of damage or repair bill, and then send it to the local branch office of the club "for referral to attorney through (name of club) Legal Reimbursement Dept." Twenty of the 21 counties of the State are represented by the attorneys listed.

So far as it appears, this list is not an approved law list, and it, therefore, constitutes a violation of Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 43 for an attorney to permit his name to appear on it. And, it is clear from the wording "Attorneys Who Have Agreed to Handle," etc. that the attorneys knew that their names were to appear in the pamphlet, which in turn was to be distributed to the club members.

This also constitutes a violation of Canon 27, since it becomes direct advertising. In a somewhat analogous case, where an underwriter insurance bureau wrote into policies the names of the attorneys selected in the localities wherein the insureds resided, directing them to communicate with such attorneys in case of accident or other problems under the policies, ABA Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion 137 (1935) held such publication of names to be unethical.

We do not view this as the type of situation such as was considered by the United States Supreme Court in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1113, 12 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1964).

For additional discussion of this problem, see Drinker, Legal Ethics 161 et seq. (1953).

Canon 46 does not aid the lawyers involved because, first, this is not an approved legal publication and, secondly, the specialized legal service offered is not from lawyer to lawyer, but from lawyer to layman.

The practice of lawyers consenting to have their names listed in the publication in question is disapproved.