Can two Ohio law firms jointly run a 900-number legal advice line, and how can a firm advertise its own 900 line?

Plain-English summary

The Board considered a proposal by attorneys in different firms to jointly operate two 900-number telephone information lines, one offering legal information on employment law and one offering primarily non-legal advice to parents of handicapped students with some legal advice. Drawing on Opinion 89-35, the Board concluded that a lawyer may not practice with more than one law firm at the same time, and that jointly operating a telephone information service goes beyond co-counseling on a single case because it carries ongoing financial and professional responsibilities. It therefore concluded that two firms could not jointly establish either 900 service, because the lawyers would be practicing with more than one firm. The Board did not address whether a single lawyer or firm could run the mixed legal and non-legal line.

On advertising, the Board concluded that a single firm could advertise a 900 line for legal advice through flyers, newspapers, or radio, and that a descriptive line name could be used if followed by "a service of X law firm" to avoid the appearance of a prohibited trade name under DR 2-102(B). It relied on Opinion 92-10, which had already permitted a firm to operate and advertise a dial-a-lawyer service.

The Board also concluded that a firm could note in such advertising that one of its attorneys held a degree in another field, because schools attended, degrees, memberships, and licenses are presumed informational under DR 2-101(D), unless the attorney was engaged in the other profession or business as well as the practice of law, which DR 2-102(E) addresses.

Currency note

The Ohio Board flags this opinion as a "CPR Opinion" that interprets the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, and as "Not current" in light of subsequent rule amendments to Gov. Bar R. III effective November 1, 1995.

This opinion issued in 1993, before Ohio's adoption of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, which superseded the former Code of Professional Responsibility effective February 1, 2007. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules for the Government of the Bar before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could two firms jointly run a 900 legal information line?

A: No. Following Opinion 89-35, the Board concluded it was improper because the lawyers would be practicing law with more than one firm, contrary to Gov. Bar R. III, and that operating the line is more than a co-counsel arrangement.

Q: Could a single firm run and advertise its own 900 line?

A: Yes. Opinion 92-10 had permitted a dial-a-lawyer service, and the Board concluded a firm could advertise its line through flyers, newspapers, or radio as, for example, "Employment Information Line, a service of X Firm," so long as the advertising complied with DR 2-101 and avoided a prohibited trade name under DR 2-102(B).

Q: Could the advertising mention that a lawyer holds a degree in another field?

A: Yes. Under DR 2-101(D), schools, degrees, memberships, and licenses are presumed informational, so the firm could note the degree, unless the attorney was engaged in that other profession or business as well as the practice of law, which DR 2-102(E) addresses.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101 (publicity), DR 2-102(B) (trade names), DR 2-102(E) (lawyer engaged in another profession), and DR 2-105 (limitation of practice), together with Gov. Bar R. III, Section 3(D), which provided that no attorney shall be associated with a legal professional association other than the one with which the attorney is actively and publicly associated.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101, DR 2-102(B), DR 2-102(E), DR 2-105(A)(1)
• Ohio Gov. Bar R. III, Section 3(D)

Other opinions cited:

• Ohio Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 92-10 (1992): dial-a-lawyer telephone advice service
• Ohio Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 89-35 (1989); Op. 89-37 (1989): practicing with more than one firm
• Alabama State Bar RO-91-24 (1991); Kansas Bar Ass'n Op. 92-06 (1992); Philadelphia Bar Ass'n Ops. 91-26 and 91-15 (1991); Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n Informal Op. 90-156 (1991): telephone information services

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1992-010: Dial-a-Lawyer Telephone Legal Advice Service
• Ohio BPC Op. 1989-027: Trade Name, Geographic Location, Legal Center
• Ohio BPC Op. 1991-007: For-Profit Lawyer Referral Service Joint Advertising
• Ohio BPC Op. 1992-012: Lawyer-Farmer Advertising in a Trade Magazine

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-93-001.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 93-1
Issued February 12, 1993

[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 Gov. Bar R. III, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.]

SYLLABUS: It is improper for two firms to jointly establish a 900 service to provide legal
information on employment law since the lawyers would be practicing law with more than one
firm.

It is improper for two law firms to jointly establish a 900 service to provide primarily non-legal
advice to parents of handicapped students and to also offer legal advice since the lawyers would be
practicing law with more than one firm.

It is proper for a law firm to advertise through flyers, newspapers, or radio a 900 line which
provides legal advice on employment law as "Employment Information Line, a service of X Firm."

It is proper for a law firm in advertising the availability of a 900 telephone number to identify that
one of the attorneys holds a degree in another field, unless the attorney is engaged in the profession
or business which that degree indicates, as well as in the practice of law.

OPINION: Attorneys practicing in different law firms wish to jointly operate two 900 telephone
information lines. The attorneys would like to provide legal information on one line, and primarily
non-legal information on the other line. The questions presented are set forth below.

1. Is it proper for two law firms to jointly operate a 900 telephone information line
   to provide legal information on employment law?

2. Is it proper for two law firms to jointly operate a 900 line which provides
   primarily non-legal advice to parents of handicapped students but which also offers
   legal advice when appropriate?

3. Is it proper for a law firm to advertise through flyers, newspapers, or radio a 900
   line for legal advice on employment law as "Employment Information Line, a
   service of X Firm?"

4. Is it proper for a law firm in advertising the availability of a 900 telephone
   number to identify that one of the attorneys holds a degree in another field?

Question One

A 900 telephone service provides information to callers on a pay-per-call basis. Such services are
available through long distance carriers. The content of the information and the rate of charge is set
by the information provider. Callers are either charged per-minute or per-call and the charge
appears on the monthly telephone bill of the caller.

In Opinion 92-10 this Board advised that within the ambit of certain ethical restrictions, it is proper
under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility for a law firm to advertise and operate a dial-a-
lawyer service that offers legal advice over the telephone for a fee. See Ohio SupCt Bd of
Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 92-10 (1992) for a discussion of applicable
disciplinary rules and ethical restrictions. See also, Alabama State Bar, RO-91-24 (1991), Kansas
Bar Ass'n, Op. 92-06 (1992), Philadelphia Bar Ass'n, Op. 91-26 (1991), Philadelphia Bar Ass'n,
Op.91-15 (1991), Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n, Informal Op. 90-156 (1991).

The Board must now consider whether two law firms may jointly provide legal information through
a 900 number. In Opinion 89-35 the Board advised that “[a]n attorney at law may not practice with
more than one legal professional association or law firm in Ohio at the same time." The Board
cited multiple ethical concerns underpinning that advice. For example, it is potentially misleading
and may be confusing to the public (DR 2-101). It creates the potential for the disclosure of
confidential information between the firms and lawyers. [DR 4-101 (B)]. It may increase the
number of conflicts of interest for the attorneys involved (Canon 5). It may be difficult for the
lawyers to exercise professional judgment solely for the benefit of a client and free of outside
influences (EC 5-1, 5-13, 5-24). There is a governing bar rule stating that "[n]o attorney at law
shall be associated in any capacity with a legal professional association other than the one with
which he is actively and publicly associated" [Gov.Bar R. III §3 (D)]. Ohio SupCt Bd of Comm’rs
on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 89-35 (1989).

The requester suggested in the letter of inquiry that the joint operation of a 900 line by two law
firms might be considered a co-counsel arrangement as opposed to a practice with more than one
firm. The Board rejects this view since the joint operation of a telephone information service has
ongoing financial and professional responsibilities that go beyond co-counseling on a particular
case.

In operating a telephone information service, a lawyer owes the caller all the traditional duties
owed by a lawyer to a client. See Ohio SupCt Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op.
92-10 (1992). A lawyer should not practice law

with more than one law firm. See Ohio SupCt Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op.
89-37 (1989). Thus, in answer to Question One, this Board's opinion is that although it may be
proper for a lawyer or law firm to establish a 900 service to provide legal service, it is improper for
two firms to jointly establish a 900 service since the lawyers would be practicing law with more
than one firm.

Question Two

As set forth in response to Question One, it is not proper for two firms to jointly establish a 900
service to provide legal service since the lawyers would be practicing law with more than one firm.
Similarly, it is improper for two law firms to jointly establish a 900 service to provide primarily
non-legal advice to parents of handicapped students and to also offer legal advice since the lawyers
would be practicing law with more than one firm.

The Board at this time does not address the unraised but related question of whether it is proper for
an individual lawyer or a single law firm to establish a 900 service to provide primarily non-legal
advice to parents of handicapped students and to also offer legal advice when appropriate. The
Board does note that the language of Rule III Section I of the Supreme Court Rules for the
Government of the Bar authorizes a legal professional association "to engage in the practice of law
in Ohio and in such other activities only as are essential to the practice of law."

Question Three

The Board now considers whether it is proper for a law firm to advertise through flyers,
newspapers, or radio a 900 line which provides legal advice on employment law as "Employment
Information Line, a service of X Firm."

Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (B) (1), amended effective January 1, 1993, states that “[s]ubject to the
limitations contained in these rules: A lawyer or law firm may advertise services through
newspapers, periodicals, trade journals, 'shoppers,' and similar print media, outdoor advertising,
radio and television, and written communication." Thus, flyers, newspapers, or radio are
acceptable media for advertising.

The Board acknowledges that some long distance carriers require that each 900 line be given a
descriptive name that would appear on the caller's bill. In a legal advertisement, the use of a
descriptive name for a 900 line could cause confusion as to whether the descriptive name is a trade
name for the law firm. This must be avoided since Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (B) prohibits lawyers
from practicing under a trade name. The

Board's view is that the confusion could be eliminated in a legal advertisement if the descriptive
name for the 900 line is followed by the words, "a service of X law firm." Therefore, this Board
advises that it is proper for a law firm to advertise through flyers, newspapers, or radio a 900 line
which provides legal advice on employment law as "Employment Information Line, a service of X
Firm," so long as the advertisement complies with Disciplinary Rule 2-101.

Question Four

The final question is whether it is proper for a law firm in advertising the availability of a 900
telephone number to identify that one of the attorneys holds a degree in another field. Disciplinary
Rule 2-101 (D) amended effective January 1,1993 sets forth information that is presumed to be
informational rather than solely promotional or self-laudatory. The rule states that such
information is acceptable for dissemination if accurate and presented in a dignified manner. Under
Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (D) (5) "schools attended, with dates of graduation and degrees conferred"
are" presumed to be informational." Under Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (D) (8) "memberships in bar
associations and other professional organizations," are "presumed to be informational." Under
Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (D) (9) "technical and professional licenses" are "presumed to be
informational." Therefore, under these rules it appears proper to identify that a lawyer holds a
degree in another field.

However, there is a prohibition in Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (E) that "[a] lawyer who is engaged both
in the practice of law and another profession or business shall not so indicate on his [her]
letterhead, office sign, or professional card, nor shall he [she] identify himself [herself] as a lawyer
in any publication in connection with his [her] other profession or business." The Board advises
that it is proper for a law firm in advertising the availability of a 900 telephone number to identify
that one of the attorneys holds a degree in another field, unless the attorney is engaged in the
profession or business which that degree indicates, as well as in the practice of law.

Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding
the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the
Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's Oath of Office.