Can a lawyer pay an advertising service that runs generic ads and sends all responders in an area to that lawyer, and does naming the participating lawyers in the ad change the answer?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer proposed to contract with an advertising consultant that runs generic television commercials directing viewers with a particular type of legal problem to call an 800 number; the agent would then route each responder in a designated geographic area to one exclusive participating lawyer, who could accept or reject the case and paid a fixed monthly fee unrelated to the legal fees charged. The committee analyzed the plan under DR 2-100(A), which bars advertising in violation of a statute or court rule, and DR 1-102(A)(2), which bars circumventing a Disciplinary Rule through another's acts. Because the Appellate Division rules require every advertisement of legal services to include the name, office address, and telephone number of the lawyer whose services are offered, the committee held a lawyer may not participate in generic advertising that omits the lawyer's own name and address and instead lists only an agent who refers callers.

The committee further held that, on the first plan, the arrangement functions more like a lawyer referral service than individual advertising: when a prospective client answers the ad, the purpose is to be given a lawyer's name rather than to reach a particular lawyer. Under DR 2-103(C) a lawyer may accept referrals only from a referral service operated, sponsored, or approved by a bar association, and this for-profit service had no such approval. The committee found it irrelevant that the agent assigned only one lawyer per area and exercised no discretion; so long as the client chooses a geographic location rather than a particular lawyer, the referral is prohibited.

On the second question, the committee reached a different result where the advertisement presents in a meaningful way the names of the participating lawyers or firms, their addresses, and their assigned areas, so the caller knows which lawyer will receive the call and the agent has no discretion. A lawyer may use advertising prepared by others if it complies with the Code: the ad must be truthful as applied to the particular lawyer (DR 2-101(A)), and a broadcast ad must be prerecorded, approved by the lawyer, and retained for a year (DR 2-101(F)). Joint advertising is permissible and may be the only economical option for a small practice, but the committee said the ad should disclose that the participating lawyers are not related, so the public is not misled about practice size or any partnership (DR 2-102(C)). It added that a central telephone number staffed by the agent or an answering service is permissible if the agent does not mislead callers or make recommendations among the participating lawyers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, under New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility, which New York replaced with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (lawyer advertising now appears at Rule 7.1, advertising mechanics at Rule 7.2, and solicitation and referral arrangements at Rule 7.3). New York's advertising rules were also amended in 2007. 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 use a service that runs generic ads and routes callers to one lawyer per area?

A: No. The committee held that an ad omitting the lawyer's own name and address violates the court rules, and that routing callers by geographic area to an exclusive lawyer operates as an unapproved lawyer referral service barred by DR 2-103(C).

Q: Does it matter that only one lawyer is assigned per area?

A: No. The committee found it irrelevant that the agent had no discretion; because the caller is choosing a location rather than a particular lawyer, the arrangement is still a prohibited referral.

Q: Can lawyers run a joint advertisement prepared by a service?

A: Yes, if it complies with the Code. The committee allowed group ads that meaningfully name each participating lawyer, address, and area, are truthful as applied to each lawyer, and disclose that the lawyers are not related so the public is not misled about partnership or practice size.

Q: Can the ad list a central phone number staffed by the agent?

A: Yes. The committee held a central number answered by the agent or an answering service is permissible if the agent does not mislead callers about the scope of its role or recommend among the participating lawyers.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted the New York Code advertising provisions: the bar on advertising that violates a statute or court rule (DR 2-100(A)), the bar on circumventing a rule through another (DR 1-102(A)(2)), truthful advertising and broadcast-retention requirements (DR 2-101(A), (F)), the bar on falsely implying partnership (DR 2-102(C)), and the limit on referral arrangements to bar-approved services (DR 2-103(C)). The closest Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services), Rule 7.2 (advertising), and Rule 7.3 (solicitation and referral arrangements).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.2 (advertising; group and prepared advertising)
• MR 7.3 (solicitation; referral arrangements)
• NY DR 1-102(A)(2); DR 2-100(A); DR 2-101(A), (F); DR 2-102(C); DR 2-103(C)

Cases:

• Anonymous v. Grievance Committee, 136 A.D.2d 344 (2d Dep't 1988): the name-and-address advertising rule sustained as an aid to consumers

Other opinions cited:

• "Regulation of Private Legal Referral Services," 44 The Record 3 (Jan/Feb 1989): bar associations had not developed standards to approve for-profit referral services

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 614: Client testimonials in radio and television advertising
• NY State Bar Op. 624: Sending newspaper articles about the lawyer to nonlawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-597/