Can a New York law firm organize and promote a legal seminar for nonlawyers by direct mail?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a law firm may organize and promote by mail a legal seminar expressly designed for nonlawyers. It answered yes, subject to the limit of its jurisdiction over questions of law.

The committee traced the old prohibition. Before the 1978 revisions made in light of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), the ethical strictures against law firms running legal seminars for lay persons rested on the theory that such activities were advertising and solicitation, both then broadly barred by former DR 2-101 and DR 2-103. Under that view sponsorship was central: N.Y. State 283 (1972) required that a public seminar "be sponsored by a bar association, school or other responsible public or private organization," and N.Y. State 442 (1976) found a lawyer-run "school" on the Bankruptcy Act improper because it operated independently of any responsible sponsoring organization and "smack[ed] of an effort to avoid the present strictures against advertising."

After Bates, the committee explained, the supporting rules were amended away. EC 2-2 was revised to delete the requirement that educational participation be "under proper auspices" and not for publicity or employment, and DR 2-104(C) was amended to remove the requirement that participation be in programs "conducted or sponsored by a qualified organization." With advertising now permitted and the sponsorship requirements repealed, much of the rationale for the traditional ban was gone. As to the direct-mail method, the committee followed N.Y. State 507 (1979): the amendments place no limit on the medium a lawyer may use to advertise, so absent in-person solicitation concerns or a contrary judicial determination, propriety turns on content, and "advertising does not become solicitation simply by virtue of being sent through the mails." Whether such mailings violate Judiciary Law section 479, and whether that section survives Bates, are questions of law the committee could not decide; a court holding the conduct unlawful would render it unethical (EC 1-5, DR 1-102(A), DR 7-102(A)(8)). The committee added that, sent to sophisticated businessmen and executives accustomed to such communications, a direct-mail promotion is not functionally different from broadcast or print advertising. The question was answered in the affirmative, subject to those qualifications.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (advertising and solicitation are now governed mainly by Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3). 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: Could a New York law firm run a legal seminar aimed at nonlawyers?

A: Under this opinion, yes. After Bates the committee found the old sponsorship requirements (EC 2-2, DR 2-104(C)) repealed, removing the rationale for the prior ban.

Q: Did the firm need a bar association or school to sponsor the seminar?

A: No. The committee held the amendments deleted the "proper auspices" and "qualified organization" sponsorship requirements that N.Y. State 283 and 442 had enforced.

Q: Could the seminar be promoted by direct mail?

A: Yes, absent a court holding that it violates Judiciary Law section 479. Following N.Y. State 507, the committee held advertising does not become improper solicitation merely by being mailed.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the post-Bates amendments to EC 2-2 and DR 2-104(C) (removing sponsorship requirements for educational programs), DR 2-101 and DR 2-103 (advertising and solicitation), and EC 1-5, DR 1-102(A), and DR 7-102(A)(8) (treating unlawful conduct as unethical), against Judiciary Law section 479. The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services), Rule 7.2 (advertising), and Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.2 (advertising)
• MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
• NY EC 1-5, EC 2-2; DR 1-102(A), 2-101, 2-103, 2-104(C), 7-102(A)(8)

Statutes:

• N.Y. Judiciary Law section 479 (unlawful solicitation of legal business)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), constitutional protection for lawyer advertising
• Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978), in-person solicitation
• Kentucky State Bar Association v. Stuart, 568 S.W.2d 933 (Ky. 1978), direct-mail solicitation

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 283 (1972) and 442 (1976): the pre-Bates sponsorship requirement for lay seminars
• N.Y. State 507 (1979): advertising mailed to nonlawyers

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 507: Mailing an advertisement to nonlawyers
• NY State Bar Op. 505: Publicizing the opening of a law office
• NY State Bar Op. 524: Auctioning legal services for charity

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-508/