Can a lawyer pay a for-profit online service a flat fee for leads to potential clients?
NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1131: Paying a for-profit lead-generation service
Short answer: A lawyer may pay a for-profit service for leads to potential clients gathered through its website, as long as the service selects lawyers by transparent, mechanical methods (not by analyzing the client's problem or the lawyer's qualifications), does not explicitly or implicitly recommend any lawyer, and its website complies with Rule 7.1.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.
Plain-English summary
The service collects a potential client's name, contact information, locale, and practice area, then assigns the lead to a participating lawyer by neutral, mechanical criteria (for example, registration order). The lawyer pays a fixed fee that does not vary with whether the lead is retained or what the lawyer charges. The committee analyzes the arrangement under the advertising, referral, and solicitation rules.
The service's website is an "advertisement" under Rule 1.0(a), and each participating lawyer "uses or participates in" it under Rule 7.1(a), so the lawyer must ensure it is not false, deceptive, or misleading and that it carries the disclosures Rule 7.1 requires, including the Rule 7.1(h) name, office, and telephone information (the service can satisfy this by linking to a list of participating lawyers and their contact information). On referral fees, Rule 7.2(a) bars paying to be recommended or to obtain employment, but Comment [1] (amended in 2015) confirms a lawyer may pay for permissible advertising and for Internet-based client leads if the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer. The committee adopts conditions tracking that comment: the service must make clear that listing requires only payment, that its selection is a neutral process involving no evaluative judgment, and that selection does not mean the chosen lawyer is the "best" or "right" lawyer. A fixed marketing fee unrelated to retention or fee amount raises no problem under Rules 1.5(g) or 5.4, and the committee overrules N.Y. State 902 (2012) to the extent it barred such a marketing fee.
On solicitation, a lawyer who buys a lead may telephone the potential client because, under Rule 7.3(b), a communication made in response to the client's specific request to be contacted is not a "solicitation initiated by or on behalf of" the lawyer. The committee reads the rule's "writing" example to include a request to be contacted by telephone, text, or email.
In practice
Under this opinion, a lawyer may pay a for-profit lead service a flat or per-lead fee if three conditions hold: the lawyer who contacts the client was selected by transparent, mechanical methods not based on analyzing the client's problem or the lawyer's qualifications; the service neither states nor implies that it recommends any lawyer; and the service's website satisfies Rule 7.1, including the Rule 7.1(h) contact-information requirement. The lawyer may then telephone a lead who has invited contact, because that response is not a solicitation initiated by the lawyer. The committee overruled N.Y. State 902 only as to payment of the marketing fee described here.
Common questions
Q: Does paying a for-profit lead service violate the ban on paying for referrals?
A: Not if the service does not recommend lawyers. Rule 7.2(a) Comment [1] permits paying for Internet-based leads where the generator does not recommend the lawyer and the payment is consistent with Rules 1.5(g) and 5.4 (Opinion 1131 ¶¶ 18, 22-24).
Q: How can the website meet Rule 7.1(h)'s requirement to name the lawyer?
A: By linking to a list of all participating lawyers (or those matching the client's geographic and practice-area criteria) with the required contact information, so the client knows who may be assigned (¶¶ 14-16).
Q: May the lawyer call a lead by phone?
A: Yes, if the potential client invited contact. Under Rule 7.3(b), a response to the client's specific request is not a solicitation initiated by the lawyer (¶ 27).
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Rule 7.2(a) (Model Rule 7.2) on payments for recommendations and obtaining employment, read together with its 2015-amended Comment [1] on lead generators; Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1) on advertising content and required disclosures, including Rule 7.1(h); Rule 7.3 (Model Rule 7.3) on solicitation and its request exception; and Rules 1.5(g) and 5.4 (Model Rules 1.5, 5.4) on fee division and professional independence.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Rule 7.2(a) and Comment [1] (Model Rule 7.2): paying for recommendations; lead generators
- New York Rule 7.1(a), (f), (h) (Model Rule 7.1): advertising; required disclosures
- New York Rule 7.3(b) (Model Rule 7.3): solicitation; the specific-request exception
- New York Rules 1.5(g), 5.4 (Model Rules 1.5, 5.4): fee division; professional independence
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 902 (2012): overruled as to payment of the marketing fee
- N.Y. State 799 (2006): directory vs. recommendation; the "analyzes the problem" line
- N.Y. State 779 (2004): paying for pre-screened leads barred under the former Code
- N.Y. State 1049 (2015); N.Y. State 1014 (2014): client-initiated contact is not solicitation
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 1132: Paying Avvo Legal Services' marketing fee
- NY State Bar Op. 1150: Referrals with a real-estate broker spouse
- NY State Bar Op. 1136: Law firm sponsorship of events and raffles
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1131/