Can an Ohio lawyer set up a website intake form that lets visitors email legal questions and get paid answers from an attorney?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Board addressed a proposal for a law firm website feature letting visitors complete an intake form (name, address, credit-card information, legal question, and password) and receive email answers from firm attorneys for a flat fee per single-topic question, with no real-time, telephone, or in-person contact. The Board framed the question against the Code's access-to-justice values and analogized to its earlier Opinion 92-10, which had approved a "dial-a-lawyer" telephone advice service while noting that such advice constitutes professional legal employment carrying all the traditional duties owed to a client. It also discussed South Carolina Bar Op. 94-27, which found that operating a law office via electronic media does not itself violate the rules but raises issues of communication, advertising, geographic limits, conflicts, and privileged communications.
The Board concluded that the service is proper if conducted in compliance with the Code, and it listed guidelines: representation must be free of conflicts under DR 5-101 and 5-105, with a conflicts check built into the intake process before the question is reviewed; the attorney must act competently under DR 6-101(A); confidences and secrets must be protected under DR 4-101 (cross-referencing Opinion 99-2 on unencrypted email); advertising must comply with DR 2-101 through 2-105; the service must be offered under the firm name, not a trade name, under DR 2-102(B); the service cannot be a joint business effort with a non-lawyer under DR 3-103(A); fees cannot be excessive under DR 2-106(A); the attorney should tell the client if a question cannot properly be answered by email and should not recommend further employment except as DR 2-103(A) and 2-104 allow; and the attorney must not practice where doing so would violate another jurisdiction's regulation under DR 3-101(B). The Board noted it disagreed with Arizona's view that prospective clients should not be able to submit intake forms electronically, citing its own Opinion 99-2.
Currency note
The Board's status list flags this opinion as a CPR Opinion that provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, which was superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007.
This opinion issued in 1999, before that revision. The DR provisions discussed here have been replaced by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 1.1, 1.6, 1.7, 1.5, 5.5, 7.1 through 7.3). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio rules before relying on any specific provision mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Could an Ohio lawyer offer paid legal answers to questions submitted through a website?
A: Yes. The opinion concluded that placing an online intake form for emailed legal questions answered for a fee is proper, provided the attorney complies with the Code and the opinion's guidelines.
Q: Did answering an emailed question create a lawyer-client relationship?
A: Yes. The opinion stated that providing legal advice to specific questions by email constitutes professional legal employment carrying all the traditional duties owed to a client.
Q: What did the lawyer have to do before answering a question?
A: The opinion directed that the intake process build in a conflicts check under DR 5-101 and 5-105 before the legal question is reviewed.
Q: Could the online service use a catchy trade name?
A: No. The opinion concluded the service must be advertised under the law firm name, not a trade name, under DR 2-102(B).
Q: Could the lawyer offer the service to clients in other states?
A: The opinion concluded the attorney must not offer online advice in a jurisdiction where doing so would violate that jurisdiction's regulation of the profession under DR 3-101(B).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-101 and DR 5-105 (conflicts), DR 6-101(A) (competence), DR 4-101 (confidences and secrets), DR 2-101 through DR 2-105 (advertising and specialization), DR 2-102(B) (trade names), DR 2-106(A) (fees), DR 3-101(B) (unauthorized practice), and DR 3-103(A) (partnerships with non-lawyers), provisions now addressed by Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 5.5, and 7.1 through 7.5 (Model Rules 1.1, 1.6, 1.7, and 5.5).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-101, DR 5-105, DR 6-101(A), DR 4-101, DR 2-101 through DR 2-105, DR 2-102(B), DR 2-106(A), DR 3-101(B), DR 3-103(A), DR 2-103(A), DR 2-104; EC 1-1
Other opinions cited:
- Ohio Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline Ops. 92-10 (1992) (dial-a-lawyer), 99-2 (1999) (unencrypted email)
- South Carolina Bar Op. 94-27; State Bar of Arizona Op. 97-04 (1997) (contrary view on electronic intake submission)
See also
- Ohio BPC Op. 1999-002: Communicating With Clients by Unencrypted Email
- Ohio BPC Op. 1999-003: Attorney Listing in an Online Membership Directory
- Ohio BPC Op. 1999-004: Law Firm Website Domain Name
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-99-009.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 99-9
Issued December 2, 1999
[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.]
SYLLABUS: It is proper for an attorney to place an on-line intake form on the law firm
world wide web site that enables web site visitors to e-mail legal questions to the law
firm and receive responses by e-mail from an attorney for a fee. In providing such on-
line legal representation, the attorney should comport with the Ohio Code of Professional
Responsibility and the guidelines set forth in this opinion.
OPINION: This opinion addresses a question regarding on-line legal representation of
clients through e-mail questions and answers.
Is it proper for an attorney to place an on-line intake form on the law firm
world wide web site that enables web site visitors to e-mail legal questions
to the law firm and receive responses by e-mail from an attorney for a fee?
As the twentieth century comes to a close, on-line legal services arrive. The potential of
on-line services as a method of providing legal representation will be seen in the next
century. But, its presence now warrants consideration as to whether the ethical rules
governing the practice of law in Ohio permit the rendering of on-line legal advice for a
fee.
The requester would like to establish a law firm web site with a feature on the home page
allowing web site visitors to e-mail legal questions to attorneys in the law firm. Visitors
would complete an on-line intake form asking for their name, address, credit card
information, legal question, and password for the attorneys to use when responding to the
legal questions. Attorneys in the firm would respond to the questions by e-mail. The
attorneys would include a statement that the answer was researched using Ohio law and
was reviewed by an attorney licensed in Ohio. The attorneys would charge a flat fee for
answering a single topic question. The attorneys would reserve the right to determine
whether a question includes multiple topics and would communicate this before charging
for or providing the answer. If the attorney needs additional information to answer the
question, the attorney would communicate by e-mail. There would be no “real time
communication,” no telephone, and no in-person communication between the attorney
and the person. Upon answering the legal question, the lawyer would not initiate any
further contact. If a person wishes to retain the attorney for other services the contact
would be at the person’s initiative. This on-line legal service would be advertised
through the law firm web site and other media such as newspaper, radio, and law firm
brochures.
Opinion 99-9 2
Access to legal services is a fundamental concern of the bar. Ethical Consideration 1-1 of
the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility states that “[a] basic tenet of the
professional responsibility of lawyers is that every person in our society should have
ready access to the independent professional services of a lawyer of integrity and
competence.”
Only seven years ago, telephone legal advice was considered to be a novel method of
delivering legal services. In Opinion 92-10, issued April 10, 1992, the Board remarked
that “[a]lthough it is not unusual for lawyers to provide legal advice to their clients over
the telephone, it seems unusual when this legal advice is given to a caller with whom the
lawyer has no previous relationship. The Board advised that
[i]n Ohio it is not improper for a law firm to advertise and operate a dial-a-
lawyer service offering legal advice by lawyers to callers over a telephone
for a fee. However, there are several disciplinary rules that place ethical
restrictions on such dial-a-lawyer services: Disciplinary Rules 2-101, 2-
102, 2-103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 3-103, 4-101, 5-101, and 6-101. Such
telephone advice constitutes professional legal employment through which
the lawyer owes the caller all the traditional duties owed by a lawyer to a
client.
Just as telephones may provide a method of delivering legal services, so may computers.
A South Carolina attorney with a physical disability sought an opinion from the South
Carolina Bar on the propriety of representing clients exclusively through contacts from an
on-line service. In Op. 94-27, the South Carolina Bar advised that “[t]he operation of a
law office via electronic media does not, in itself, violate any provision of the rules.
However the manner in which the practice of law occurs raises several issues of
concern.” The opinion mentioned that the rules regarding communication, advertising of
services, and direct contact with prospective clients would apply. The opinion also
mentioned that geographic limitations of the lawyer’s practice must be identified so that
it is clear that the attorney may not practice law except in those states in which the
attorney is admitted to practice. In addition, the attorney was advised to obtain sufficient
information to make a complete conflicts inquiry, to consider the rules regarding trial
publicity, and to consider his ability to engage in privileged communications via
electronic mail.
With any method of legal representation ethical guidelines must be met. As to the
requirements of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, the Board offers the
advice listed below to attorneys who provide on-line legal representation through e-mail
answers to e-mail questions from non-attorneys.
1. Representation must be free from conflict of interest under DR 5-101
and 5-105. Providing legal advice to specific questions by e-mail
constitutes professional legal employment and carries with it all the
traditional duties owed by lawyer to a client. As an attorney checks
for conflicts when a client calls or comes to his office seeking legal
services, an attorney must check for conflicts when a client e-mails
seeking legal advice. The on-line intake form should provide a way
Opinion 99-9 3
for the law firm to make a conflicts check prior to reviewing the legal
question. After the conflicts check the legal question can then be
posed to the law firm by e-mail.
2. In providing answers to e-mail questions a lawyer must act
competently under DR 6-101(A).
3. The confidences and secrets of the e-mail clients must be protected
under DR 4-101. For related guidance see Ohio SupCt, Bd of
Comm’rs on Griev & Disc, Op. 99-2 (1999) (advising that “[a] lawyer
does not violate the duty to preserve confidences and secrets under DR
4-101 of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility by
communicating with clients through electronic mail without
encryption.”)
4. Advertising of the on-line legal service must comport with DR 2-101
through DR 2-105.
5. A trade name for the on-line service cannot be used under DR 2-
102(B). The on-line legal services must be advertised under the law
firm name not a trade name.
6. The provision of the on-line service cannot be a joint business effort
between an attorney and a non-attorney. Disciplinary Rule 3-103(A)
requires that “[a] lawyer shall not form a partnership with a non-
lawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice
of law.”
7. An attorney cannot charge an excessive fee for on-line legal services
under DR 2-106(A).
8. If an attorney cannot answer the e-mail question or if the attorney
determines that proper consideration cannot be given through e-mail
response the lawyer should inform the client of such. The attorney
should not recommend further employment of himself or herself or of
a partner or associate of the law firm, unless the e-mail client asks for
advice regarding employment of a lawyer under DR 2-103(A) and 2-
104.
9. The attorney must not practice law in a jurisdiction where to do so
would violate the regulation of the profession in that jurisdiction under
DR 3-101(B). Thus, an attorney should not offer legal advice on-line
to clients in other jurisdictions unless permitted by the rules of that
state.
The Board is aware of authority that advises against the on-line transmittal of information
from prospective clients. In Opinion 97-04 (1997) the State Bar of Arizona advised that
lawyers may place on-line intake forms for prospective clients on their web sites, but that
prospective clients should not be able to send completed forms electronically because of
Opinion 99-9 4
a possibility of inadvertent disclosures of confidential information. This Board disagrees.
For the Board’s view on e-mail communication with clients see Op. 99-2 (1999).
In conclusion, the Board advises that it is proper for an attorney to place an on-line intake
form on the law firm world wide web site that enables web site visitors to e-mail legal
questions to the law firm and receive responses by e-mail from an attorney for a fee. In
providing such on-line legal representation, the attorney should comport with the Ohio
Code of Professional Responsibility and the guidelines set forth in this opinion.
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.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1999 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.