Can a New York lawyer pay an online platform that scores users' anonymized workplace-experience entries and connects the lawyer with a user (with the user's consent) without violating the solicitation, advertising, or fee-payment rules?
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1294: Solicitation, Advertisement, and Lead Generators
Short answer: The opinion concludes that an online platform that collects user logs of workplace experiences, scores them with an algorithm, shares the entries in anonymized form with employment lawyers, and (with the user's consent) discloses the user's contact information to one lawyer who paid to make the contact does not produce a "solicitation" or "advertisement" by the lawyer within the meaning of the Rules, and the lawyer's payment is a permissible lead-generator fee under Rule 7.2 if (1) the platform does not recommend the lawyer, (2) the platform uses neutral, disclosed selection criteria, and (3) the fee does not vary with retention or fee amount.
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 opinion addresses a platform on which users record workplace experiences; an algorithm scores the entries and identifies potential employment claims, and lawyers can spend purchased "credits" to ask to be put in contact with an anonymized user. The platform then asks the user whether to share identifying details with the requesting lawyer; if the user consents, the platform makes the introduction. Only one lawyer (generally the first to respond) is connected to a given user at a time, and the platform expressly does not endorse any lawyer.
On solicitation, the opinion concludes the lawyer-user communication is not a "solicitation" under Rule 7.3(b) because the user, not the lawyer, initiates the contact by consenting to disclosure. The opinion analogizes to N.Y. State 1049 (2015) and N.Y. State 1014 (2014), which held that lawyer responses to potential-client-initiated requests are not solicitations.
On advertising, the opinion concludes the communication is not an "advertisement" within Rule 1.0(a). Per the opinion, applying the definition "with a measure of common sense" (quoting N.Y. State 1049), a response to a specific user request is more akin to "ordinary correspondence with a prospective client who has expressed interest" (Comment [7] to Rule 7.1) than an advertisement. The opinion concludes such communications need not carry the "Attorney Advertising" label.
On lead-generator payments, the opinion holds the lawyer's payment is permitted under Comment [1] to Rule 7.2. Per the opinion, the requirements are (a) the platform must select lawyers using "neutral (mechanical) criteria" clearly explained to users, (b) the platform must expressly state it does not endorse or recommend any lawyer, and (c) the lawyer's fee must not depend on retention or fee amount. The opinion builds on N.Y. State 1131 (2017) and notes the cautions in N.Y. State 1271 (2024) about impermissible-recommendation language.
The opinion adds a Rule 1.18 caveat: under the platform's structure a prospective client may share substantial information about the legal problem before the lawyer can run a conflict check, creating risk that the lawyer learns "significantly harmful" information that bars continued representation of a conflicting existing client. The opinion concludes the burden of that risk falls on the lawyer.
The opinion also notes a threshold "informed consent" requirement under Rule 1.0(j): the platform's disclosure to the user cannot be "buried in terms and conditions"; it must be clear and conspicuous about the contemplated information sharing and the selection process for receiving lawyers.
In practice
Under this opinion, a New York lawyer participating in such a platform should confirm (before any payment) that the platform meets the three Rule 7.2 conditions on neutral selection, no recommendation, and fixed fees, and that the user's consent to disclosure of identifying information is obtained with adequate, conspicuous notice as Rule 1.0(j) requires. Per the opinion, the lawyer's Rule 1.18 confidentiality and conflict obligations may attach to the prospective-client information the platform conveys.
Common questions
Q: Does the lawyer's response need to carry the "Attorney Advertising" label?
A: The opinion concludes no. Per the opinion, a response to a request that a particular lawyer contact a potential client is "impliedly a request for information about the lawyer's services" within Comment [7] to Rule 7.1, and labeling such a communication as advertising "would be surprising and confusing."
Q: What makes the platform's lead-generator fee permissible under Rule 7.2?
A: The opinion identifies three conditions: the platform must not recommend the lawyer, the platform must use neutral mechanical criteria clearly explained to users to select participating lawyers, and the lawyer's fee must not vary based on whether the user retains the lawyer or on the resulting fee amount.
Q: Does the inquirer's payment of a "per-contact" credit (rather than a monthly subscription) change the analysis?
A: The opinion concludes it does not, citing N.Y. State 1131 (2017) which allowed either a fixed monthly fee or a per-lead fee "as long as the fee did not vary depending on whether the lead results in retention of the lawyer or the amount of the fee the lawyer charges the client if retained."
Q: What information must the user receive before the platform discloses any anonymized information to lawyers?
A: Per the opinion, an informed consent under Rule 1.0(j) requires "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" (not a term buried in conditions) that the information will be shared in anonymized form, that a lawyer may follow up, and how the platform selects which lawyers can obtain the user's contact information.
Q: Does the platform create Rule 1.18 prospective-client duties for the lawyer?
A: The opinion concludes yes. Per the opinion, the user is a prospective client under Rule 1.18, and Rule 1.18(c) may bar the lawyer from continuing to represent an existing client in a conflicting matter if the lawyer learns information from the prospective client that could be "significantly harmful." The lawyer bears the risk and should avoid expressing interest in matters that may conflict.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Rule 1.0(a) (definition of "advertisement"), Rule 1.0(j) (informed consent), Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 1.9 (former-client confidentiality referenced through Rule 1.18), Rule 1.18 (prospective clients), Rule 7.1 (advertising), Rule 7.2 (payment for recommendations and lead generation), and Rule 7.3 (solicitation, definition and filing). The opinion also notes Section 479 of the New York Judiciary Law (statutory solicitation prohibition) as a related but separate legal question on which the committee cannot opine.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- N.Y. RPC 1.0(a) (definition of advertisement)
- N.Y. RPC 1.0(j) (informed consent)
- N.Y. RPC 1.6 (confidentiality)
- N.Y. RPC 1.9(c) (former-client confidentiality)
- N.Y. RPC 1.18(c) (prospective clients; significantly harmful information)
- N.Y. RPC 7.1, 7.1(f), (h), (k) (advertising; required disclosures)
- N.Y. RPC 7.2, Comment [1] (lead-generator payments)
- N.Y. RPC 7.3(a)(1), (b), (c) (solicitation definition and filing)
Statutes:
- N.Y. Judiciary Law § 479 (solicitation by attorneys; noted as a legal question outside the committee's jurisdiction)
Cases:
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), noted as background on constitutional limits on lawyer-advertising regulation.
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1271 (2024): impermissible-recommendation language in online referral services.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1131 (2017): lead generators using neutral criteria; fixed vs. per-lead fees.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1067 (2015): pre-conflict-check disclosure by prospective clients.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1049 (2015): potential client-initiated requests are not solicitations.
- N.Y. State Bar Op. 1014 (2014): lawyer's call to a potential client at a current client's request is not solicitation.