Can a lawyer who helps run a lawyer referral service accept clients referred to him by that service, and can his firm?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed whether a lawyer who helps direct or administer a lawyer referral service may accept clients the service refers to him. Even assuming the service is run in accordance with the Code, the committee found it improper. Where the lawyer actively participates in directing or administering the service, his being recommended for referrals gives the appearance that he is promoting the use of his own professional services rather than serving the best interest of the layperson seeking legal help.

The committee tied the result to the rationale of the referral exception. DR 2-103(D) excepts referrals from a qualified referral service from the general prohibition on a lawyer accepting employment generated by recommendation, but the kind of recommendation the exception contemplates is the disinterested, informed recommendation described in EC 2-8: a layperson is best served when the recommendation is disinterested, and a lawyer should not seek to influence another to recommend his employment. A referral to an attorney who helps administer the service does not fit that exception, so DR 2-103(D) bars the referral. The lawyer should strive to avoid not only impropriety but its appearance (EC 9-6; see also DR 2-103(C)).

The committee extended the bar to the lawyer's firm. Because the administering lawyer may not accept the referral, neither may any partner or associate, under the long line of opinions applying DR 5-105(D): where a lawyer must decline employment, no partner or associate of his firm may accept it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1976, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (referral services are now addressed by Rule 7.2 and imputation by Rule 1.10). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who administers a referral service take its referrals?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee found that self-referral creates the appearance of promoting the lawyer's own services rather than the layperson's interest, so it falls outside the disinterested-recommendation exception in DR 2-103(D) and EC 2-8.

Q: Does the bar extend to the lawyer's partners and associates?

A: Yes. The committee applied DR 5-105(D): where the administering lawyer must decline a referral, no partner or associate of his firm may accept it.

Q: Does it matter that the referral service is otherwise run properly?

A: No. The committee assumed the service complied with the Code and still found the self-referral improper because of the appearance of promoting the administrator's own services.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the then-current New York Code's referral and imputation provisions, DR 2-103(C) and (D), DR 5-105(D), EC 2-8, and EC 9-6. It is a frequently cited anchor for the firm-wide imputation rule, gathering a long list of prior opinions. The current analogues are Rule 7.2 (advertising and referral arrangements) and Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 (advertising; referral arrangements)
• MR 1.10 (imputation of conflicts)
• NY EC 2-8, EC 9-6; DR 2-103(C), DR 2-103(D), DR 5-105(D)

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 419 (1975); N.Y. State 410 (1975); N.Y. State 40 (1966): firm-wide imputation under DR 5-105(D)
• People v. Wilkins, 28 N.Y.2d 53 (1971): cited on disqualification

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 427: Public officers in an indigent-defense plan
• NY State Bar Op. 433: A conflict from a likely impleader
• NY State Bar Op. 452: A bar association's consumer legal directory

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-426/