Can a lawyer use runners or touters to bring in business, or maintain a standing business association with a habitual usury violator?

Plain-English summary

The Board of Governors addressed two points. First, it concluded that the knowing acceptance of the services of runners or touters to secure business for a bar member, with or without an agreement to compensate them, was a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that could result in disbarment.

Second, it concluded that a business association by a bar member with a loan shark, meaning one whose conduct was contrary to the state's usury statutes, was unbecoming a bar member and tended to bring the profession into disrepute. The Board was careful to limit this: the observation did not apply to a bar member's representation of such a person in a particular case or matter. The Board concluded that a standing business association with a habitual violator of the usury laws was not to be countenanced any more than association with any other habitual violator of the law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1931, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. Restrictions on solicitation through runners and touters of the kind applied here predate the modern commercial-speech decisions, including Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), that reshaped the law of lawyer advertising and solicitation. Subsequent rule amendments and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer use runners or touters to bring in clients?

A: The opinion concluded that knowingly accepting the services of runners or touters to secure business, with or without an agreement to pay them, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and could result in disbarment.

Q: Could a lawyer maintain a business association with a loan shark?

A: The opinion concluded that a standing business association with a habitual usury violator was unbecoming a bar member and tended to bring the profession into disrepute.

Q: Did that bar a lawyer from ever representing such a person?

A: No. The opinion expressly stated that its observation did not apply to representing the loan shark in a particular case or matter of employment; it addressed an ongoing business association.

Background and rules framework

The opinion did not cite a numbered rule. It rested on the general standards of the then-current Rules of Professional Conduct condemning the use of runners and touters to procure business and on the principle that a bar member's standing business association with a habitual lawbreaker reflects on the profession. These concepts are patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics in force at the time and predate the Model Rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion does not cite a numbered rule; it applies the general standards of the Rules of Professional Conduct on procuring business through runners or touters and on a bar member's associations.

Statutes:

• Oklahoma usury statutes (referenced generally as the standard a "loan shark" violates)

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 4: Soliciting Collection Work
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 3: Advertising Brief Services
• ABA Formal Op. 465: Daily-Deal Marketing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-5/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted August 29, 1931

It is the opinion of the Board of Governors that:

(a) The knowing acceptance of the services of runners or touters in securing business for a member of The State Bar of Oklahoma, with or without an agreement, express or implied, to compensate such runners or touters, is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct which may result in disbarment.

(b) That a business association by a member of The State Bar of Oklahoma with a loan shark, that is with one whose conduct is contrary to the usury statutes of this state, is unbecoming a member of The State Bar and tends to bring the profession into disrepute. This observation is not intended to apply to the representation by the member of The State Bar of the loan shark in a particular case or cases or in a particular matter of employment.

It is the opinion of the Board of Governors that a business association with an habitual violator of the usury laws of the state is not to be countenanced any more than such association with any other habitual violator of the law.