NYSBA August 11, 1976

Can a lawyer hand a written fee-schedule brochure to clients and prospective clients who come to the office?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that a lawyer may give a truthful and dignified fee-schedule brochure to clients and prospective clients who come to the office, so long as the rates are not the product of an anticompetitive agreement and the brochures are not left for unrestricted distribution to the general public.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1976. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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 on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer may make available to those who visit his office as clients or prospective clients a brochure schedule of legal fees bearing his firm name and address.

It concluded that a lawyer may properly do so with a truthful and dignified brochure setting out the basis of his fee charges and listing specific fees for particular services. The committee tied this to EC 2-19, which encourages a clear, preferably written, fee understanding to prevent misunderstanding and promote good lawyer-client relations, and to EC 2-17 and EC 2-1, recognizing that clients of moderate means have a legitimate interest in knowing what legal service will cost and that available fee information facilitates the intelligent selection of lawyers. Addressing Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), the committee explained that Goldfarb condemned minimum-fee schedules only where their rates were the product of concerted action preventing price competition; an individual lawyer's honest brochure of his own rates, not the product of agreement with competitors, is not improper.

The committee read DR 2-103(A) as barring a lawyer from recommending his own employment only to a non-lawyer who has not sought his advice, so a brochure given to those who come seeking legal assistance is permissible, and the lawyer may provide it himself rather than waiting for the client to ask. It drew a line, however, at leaving a stack of brochures in the waiting room for unrestricted distribution to any member of the public visiting for some other purpose; that would convert the brochure into an advertising device not recognized by DR 2-102(A). The committee analogized to group legal service plans, which may circulate written fee schedules to members (N.Y. State 417 (1975); N.Y. State 428 (1976)), and held individual lawyers should have an equal opportunity, subject to the same standard that the brochure be dignified and contain no untrue or misleading statement of material fact.

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, and before Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) established constitutional protection for truthful lawyer advertising. Fees are now governed by Rule 1.5 and advertising by Rules 7.1 and 7.2. Subsequent rule amendments and decisions have substantially broadened what lawyers may publish about fees. 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 give clients a written list of fees?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held a truthful and dignified fee-schedule brochure may be given to clients and prospective clients who come to the office, and the lawyer need not wait to be asked.

Q: Can the lawyer leave the brochures out for anyone to take?

A: Per the opinion, no. The committee held that leaving brochures for unrestricted distribution to the general public would turn them into an advertising device contrary to DR 2-102(A).

Q: Did minimum-fee schedules survive Goldfarb?

A: The committee read Goldfarb to condemn fee schedules only where the rates resulted from concerted anticompetitive action; an individual lawyer's own honest rates, not set by agreement with competitors, were not affected.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the then-current New York Code's fee and advertising provisions, EC 2-1, EC 2-17, EC 2-19, DR 2-101, DR 2-102(A), DR 2-103(A), and DR 2-104, read in light of Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975). The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 1.5 (fees) and Rules 7.1 and 7.2 (communications and advertising about a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

MR 1.5 (fees)
MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
MR 7.2 (advertising)
NY EC 2-1, EC 2-17, EC 2-19; DR 2-101, DR 2-102(A), DR 2-103(A), DR 2-104

Cases:

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), minimum-fee schedules and antitrust

Other opinions cited:

N.Y. State 417 (1975); N.Y. State 428 (1976): written fee schedules circulated by group legal service plans

Source

Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-441/

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1976 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.