Can a lawyer pay to be listed on a website that promises to match clients with carefully vetted, highly qualified attorneys?
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1267: Paying a Website That Vouches for Its Lawyers
Short answer: The opinion concludes that a website promising to connect potential clients with carefully vetted, excellently qualified attorneys is an advertisement on behalf of the participating lawyers, and the lawyers' payment to be listed is an improper payment for a recommendation in violation of Rule 7.2(a); the lawyer who operates the website violates Rule 8.4(a) by inducing that misconduct.
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 is a lawyer who part-owns a business that connects potential clients with attorneys. A client texts a number or clicks a chat box, selects an area of law, and is linked to a lawyer the website represents has "excellent qualifications" and a strong reputation; the site says it carefully vets the attorneys in its network and matches people with "top-flight" attorneys. Participating lawyers pay a fee to be in the network. The inquirer asked whether the site must state that it is "Attorney advertising" and whether the payments are an improper payment for a recommendation. The opinion notes at the outset that whether the business implicates Judiciary Law section 495(1)(d) is a question of law beyond its jurisdiction.
On advertising, the opinion applies Rule 1.0(a)'s definition: because the lawyers pay to participate, the website is a communication "on behalf of" the lawyers whose primary purpose is their retention, so it is an advertisement (citing N.Y. State 1132 (2017) and N.Y. State 1131 (2017)). The opinion concludes each participating lawyer therefore has a duty under Rule 7.1 to ensure the site complies with the advertising rules, including the "Attorney Advertising" label under Rule 7.1(f) and the name, principal law office, and telephone number under Rule 7.1(h).
On referrals, the opinion applies Rule 7.2(a), which bars a lawyer from giving anything of value to recommend or obtain employment, and finds none of its exceptions apply. The dispositive question is whether the lawyers are paying the business to "recommend" them. Drawing on Comment [1] to Rule 7.2 (a communication recommends a lawyer if it endorses or vouches for the lawyer's credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional qualities) and on N.Y. State 1131 and N.Y. State 1132 (Avvo), the opinion concludes the site's claims to vet attorneys and offer "top-flight" lawyers with "excellent qualifications" create the impression that it is recommending the participating lawyers, so the payments violate Rule 7.2(a). Because the participating lawyers are thereby violating Rule 7.2(a), the opinion concludes the inquirer's operation of the website violates Rule 8.4(a), which forbids inducing another to violate the Rules.
In practice
Under this opinion, a lawyer may not pay to be listed on a website that vouches for the participating lawyers' qualifications and represents that it vets them, because the payment is for a recommendation barred by Rule 7.2(a), and the site is an advertisement subject to Rule 7.1's label and identification requirements. Per the opinion, the lawyer who operates such a site violates Rule 8.4(a) by inducing the participating lawyers' misconduct. The opinion contrasts this with arrangements, described in the cited opinions, that use neutral, non-qualitative criteria and do not vouch for the lawyers.
Common questions
Q: Is a lawyer-matching website "attorney advertising"?
A: Per the opinion, yes. Because the lawyers pay to participate, the site is a communication on their behalf whose primary purpose is their retention, so it is an advertisement under Rule 1.0(a), and each participating lawyer must ensure it follows Rule 7.1, including the "Attorney Advertising" label and the required lawyer identifying information.
Q: Why is paying to be listed a prohibited payment for a recommendation?
A: Per the opinion, because the site vouches for the lawyers, claiming to vet them and to offer "top-flight" attorneys with "excellent qualifications," it creates the impression that it recommends the participating lawyers, so their payments violate Rule 7.2(a).
Q: Does the lawyer who runs the site face a separate violation?
A: Per the opinion, yes. By operating a site that induces participating lawyers to pay for recommendations, the inquirer violates Rule 8.4(a), which forbids inducing another to violate the Rules.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets New York Rule 1.0(a) (definition of "advertisement"), Rule 7.1(a), (f), and (h) (advertising content, the "Attorney Advertising" label, and required identifying information), Rule 7.2(a) (no payment for recommendations or employment), and Rule 8.4(a) (inducing another to violate the Rules). These correspond to ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 8.4. The opinion notes, but does not decide, whether the business implicates Judiciary Law section 495(1)(d).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.0(a), 7.1(a), (f) & (h), 7.2(a), 8.4(a)
- ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, 8.4 (analogues)
Statutes:
- New York Judiciary Law section 495(1)(d) (corporation furnishing attorneys; noted as a question of law)
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 1132 (2017): the Avvo lawyer-rating website was an advertisement that recommended participating lawyers
- N.Y. State 1131 (2017): a lead-collection website is an advertisement; neutral, non-qualitative criteria are not a recommendation
- N.Y. State 799 (2007): a site that analyzes the problem and names a lawyer is recommending
- N.J. Comm. on Attorney Advertising Op. 2004-1; Arizona Op. 11-02: disclaimers and non-endorsement listings
See also
- NYSBA Ethics Op. 1294: Lead-Generator Platforms
- CA COPRAC Op. 2019-199: Online Directory Profiles
- ISBA Op. 25-02: For-Profit Referral Service
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1267/