Could a lawyer write to adoption organizations asking them to refer prospective clients, offering discounted fees for adoptions of 'special children'?
Ohio BPC Opinion 88-009: Soliciting Client Referrals From Non-Bar Organizations
Short answer: The Board concluded that a lawyer could not send letters to adoption groups asking them to refer prospective clients, because former DR 2-103(C) barred requesting a person or organization to recommend the lawyer's services except through a bar-association referral service, and former EC 2-8 counseled that a lawyer should not seek to influence a third party's recommendation, including by offering a discounted fee.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct's 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. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988 under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, which was superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007. The Board's status list also flags subsequent amendments to DR 2-103 effective July 1, 1996. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (including Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.2 and 7.3) before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether he could send letters to groups, associations, and organizations involved in the adoption of "special children," asking them to refer people interested in adopting, with the lawyer offering his services at a discounted fee for such adoptions. The Board assumed the organizations were not lawyer referral services operated, sponsored, or approved by a bar association, and did not fall within any other exception.
The Board concluded that, although the offer was generous, former DR 2-103(C) did not allow the lawyer to request such referrals, because the Code prohibited requesting a person or organization to recommend the lawyer's services except through a bar-association-sponsored or approved referral service. The Board added that under former EC 2-8, for a third-party recommendation to be disinterested, a lawyer should not seek to influence another to recommend his employment, so the lawyer could not seek to influence the adoption organizations by offering discounted services. The Board advised against sending the letters.
Common questions
Q: Could the lawyer ask adoption organizations to refer clients to him?
A: No. The Board concluded that former DR 2-103(C) barred requesting a person or organization to recommend the lawyer's services except through a bar-association referral service.
Q: Did offering a discounted fee change the analysis?
A: No. The Board concluded that under former EC 2-8 a lawyer should not seek to influence another's recommendation, so offering discounted services to the organizations did not make the solicitation permissible.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies former DR 2-103(C) (limits on requesting recommendations of one's services) and former EC 2-8 (a disinterested third-party recommendation) of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility. The current parallels on solicitation and referral arrangements are Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.2 and 7.3, and Model Rules 7.2 and 7.3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former DR 2-103(C), Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
- Former EC 2-8, Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
See also
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-003: Direct-Mail Solicitation by a Legal Aid Lawyer
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-004: Listing in a Legal Directory or Law List
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op-88-009.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 88-009
Issued June 17, 1988
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
[Not current-subsequent rule amendments to DR 2-103, eff. July 1, 1996.]
SYLLABUS: A lawyer shall not request a person or organization to recommend or promote the use of his or her services, except for a referral service operated, sponsored, or approved by a bar association. A lawyer may accept referrals from a legal service organization, as long as the person making the recommendation is a member or beneficiary of the organization and the lawyer remains free to exercise his independent professional judgment on behalf of his or her client.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an informal advisory opinion on whether you may send out a letter to groups, association, and/or organizations, that are involved in the adoption of "special children," seeking their referral of persons interested in adopting these children. You state that you intend to offer your legal services at a discounted fee for handling adoptions involving "special children."
We assume the organizations you wish to send your letter to are not lawyer referral service operated, sponsored, or approved by a bar association, nor do they fall within any other exception to the Code's prohibition against referrals. Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-103(C). In this regard, although this is a generous and noble offer, the Code does not allow you to request such referrals.
In addition, EC 2-8 states that in order for a third party recommendation to be disinterested, a lawyer should not seek to influence another to recommend his or her employment. Therefore, you may not seek to influence persons involved in the adoption of "special children" by offering your legal services at a discount.
In conclusion, it is our opinion and you are so advised against sending a letter seeking referrals on adoptions of "special children."
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and limited to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.