Can a lawyer advertise for cases, like personal injury, that the lawyer does not actually handle but refers out to other firms?
Ohio BPC Opinion 88-028: Advertising for Cases a Lawyer Does Not Handle
Short answer: The Board concluded that it is misleading under former DR 2-101(A) for a lawyer to advertise for work the lawyer does not handle, such as advertising for personal injury clients while referring those cases out, because a layperson would assume the advertising lawyer handles that work.
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This opinion was issued in 1988 under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, which was superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007.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 2-101 (effective January 1, 1993 and August 16, 1993). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (including Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.1 on communications about a lawyer's services) before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether it was ethical to advertise for personal injury clients when the lawyer did not handle personal injury work and simply referred those cases to outside firms.
The Board applied former DR 2-101(A), under which a lawyer shall not use, or participate in the use of, any communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement or claim. It concluded that advertising for work the lawyer does not handle would be deceptive and misleading, and may be fraudulent, because a layperson exposed to the advertising would assume the lawyer handles the type of work advertised. The Board concluded the practice is prohibited by DR 2-101(A).
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer advertise for case types the lawyer refers out rather than handles?
A: No. The Board concluded that advertising for work the lawyer does not handle is deceptive and misleading, and potentially fraudulent, and is prohibited by former DR 2-101(A).
Q: Why was the advertising treated as misleading?
A: The Board reasoned that a layperson exposed to the advertising would assume the advertising lawyer handles the type of work advertised, when in fact the lawyer referred those cases elsewhere.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies former DR 2-101(A) of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility (false or misleading communications). The current parallel is Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.1.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former DR 2-101(A), Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
See also
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-027: Advertising in the Talking Yellow Pages
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-029: Billboard Advertising
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1988-022: Sending Law Firm Newsletters to Non-Clients
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op-88-028.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 88-28
Issued December 16, 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 2-101, eff. Jan. 1, 1993 and Aug. 16, 1993.]
SYLLABUS: Under DR 2-101(A), it is misleading for attorneys to advertise that they handle specific types of cases when in fact, they do not handle those types of cases.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an informal advisory opinion on whether it is ethical for an attorney to advertise for personal injury clients when they do not handle personal injury work themselves and simply refer those clients' cases to law firms outside their own office for handling.
Disciplinary Rule 2-101(A) states that a lawyer shall not use, or participate in the use of, any form of communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement or claim. Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-101(A). It is our opinion that attorneys who advertise for work they do not handle would be deceptive, misleading and may be fraudulent and, therefore is prohibited by DR 2-101(A). Undoubtedly, a layperson who is exposed to an attorney's advertising would assume that the attorney handles the type of work he or she is advertising.
In conclusion, it is our opinion and you are so advised that it would be deceptive, misleading and potentially fraudulent for an attorney to advertise for work that he or she does not handle and therefore is prohibited by DR 2-101(A).
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts and limited to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.