Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA 2021-01-11

Can a lawyer pay to join an online matching service that picks 'the best traffic lawyer' for a client and vouches for that lawyer's track record?

Short answer: No. The opinion concludes that a service that vouches for a lawyer's credentials and recommends the lawyer as the 'best' or 'right' choice is making a prohibited recommendation, so the lawyer's payment is an impermissible referral fee under Rule 7.2(a), not a permitted marketing fee.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked at the bottom of this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1213: Lawyer Paying for a Recommendation

Short answer: The opinion concludes that a lawyer may not participate in an online lawyer-client matching service that vouches for the lawyer's credentials, competence, and effectiveness and recommends the lawyer as the "best lawyer" for the client, because the lawyer's payment would be a prohibited referral fee under Rule 7.2(a).

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association's view of New York's 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 inquirer wants to join an online service that connects people facing traffic tickets with lawyers. The client uploads the ticket and information, a proprietary algorithm matches the client with "the best local traffic lawyer for their case," and quotes a fee set by the selected lawyer; once paid, the lawyer has a day to accept, and the service transfers the fee net of its service charge. The algorithm weighs factors including location, fee schedules, success rates, local competition, and customer service, and the service collects feedback and may issue refunds. The service is not a law firm, is not owned by New York lawyers, and the lawyers are neither its employees nor agents. The inquirer asked whether the portion of the fee the service keeps is a prohibited referral fee.

The opinion applies Rule 7.2(a), which bars a lawyer from giving anything of value to a person to recommend or obtain employment. Comment [1] allows paying for advertising and for lead generation, including internet leads, so long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer; a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states, implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer or has analyzed the person's legal problem in deciding who gets the referral. The service is a lead generator, so the key question is whether it "recommends" lawyers. The committee contrasts its two 2017 opinions: N.Y. State 1131 approved a service that selected lawyers by neutral, mechanical factors (such as order of registration) and did not vet or rank quality, while N.Y. State 1132 found Avvo's service crossed the line by giving lawyers precise numerical ratings and advertising that it helped clients find "the right lawyer."

Applying that line, the committee finds this service resembles the impermissible Avvo model: it matches clients based on attorney success rate, response rate, and customer-service rating, and tells clients they are matched not to just any lawyer but to an "experienced traffic attorney" with a "great track record" in the relevant court, claiming to know which lawyers succeed in each court. The service plainly strives to give the impression it has chosen the "best" or "right" lawyer, preferred over others, so it vouches for the matched lawyer and makes a prohibited recommendation. The inquirer's payment is therefore a prohibited referral fee under Rule 7.2(a), not a permitted marketing fee. Having found a Rule 7.2(a) violation, the committee did not reach the additional concerns of improper fee sharing with a nonlawyer under Rule 5.4(a) or false or misleading advertising under Rule 7.1(a).

In practice

Under this opinion, a New York lawyer may not pay to participate in an online matching service that ranks or vouches for lawyers and presents itself as selecting the "best" or "right" lawyer for the client, because that payment is a prohibited referral fee under Rule 7.2(a). Per the opinion, the dividing line is whether the service recommends: a service that selects by neutral, mechanical factors and discloses it does not vet quality (as in N.Y. State 1131) is permitted, while one that assesses and promotes lawyer quality and track record (as in N.Y. State 1132) is not.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer pay an online service that uses an algorithm to send them client leads?

A: Sometimes. Per the opinion, paying for lead generation is permitted under Rule 7.2(a) and Comment [1] only if the service does not recommend the lawyer or imply it has analyzed the client's problem in choosing who gets the lead.

Q: What makes a matching service a prohibited "recommendation"?

A: Per the opinion, recommending includes identifying a lawyer as "a right" or "the right" lawyer after a qualitative, comparative assessment; vouching for a lawyer's credentials, track record, or effectiveness crosses that line.

Q: Why is this traffic-ticket service over the line?

A: Per the opinion, it matches on success rate and customer-service ratings and tells clients they get an "experienced" lawyer with a "great track record," so it vouches for the lawyer and recommends, unlike the neutral, mechanical service approved in N.Y. State 1131.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 7.2(a) (no payment to a person to recommend or obtain employment) with Comment [1] (advertising and lead generation versus recommendations), and references Rule 7.1(a) (false, deceptive, or misleading advertising) and Rule 5.4(a) (sharing fees with a nonlawyer). These correspond to ABA Model Rules 7.2, 7.1, and 5.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • New York Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2(a) and Cmt. [1], 7.1(a), 5.4(a)
  • ABA Model Rules 7.2, 7.1, 5.4 (analogues)

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 979 (2013): paying for joint advertising versus paying for referrals
  • N.Y. State 1131 (2017): permissible neutral, mechanical matching service
  • N.Y. State 1132 (2017): Avvo's rating-and-recommendation model held impermissible

See also

Source