Can a lawyer produce and sell general legal-information audio or video recordings to the public with non-lawyer partners, and put the lawyer's name and practice area on them?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2005. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer wants to prepare a series of audiotapes or videotapes providing general legal information to be sold to the public. The opinion asks whether the lawyer may join with others to prepare and sell the tapes for a profit, and whether the lawyer's name, office address, and practice emphasis may be identified on the tapes or accompanying materials. The opinion answers yes to the first and yes, qualified, to the second.
On producing and selling, the opinion concludes that producing and marketing general tapes about legal subjects is not the practice of law, citing Oregon State Bar v. Gilchrist (selling do-it-yourself divorce kits held not unlawful practice). Because the activity is not the practice of law, there can be no violation of Oregon RPC 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice) or RPC 5.4(a) and (b) (fee-sharing and partnership with nonlawyers), so those rules do not limit the lawyer's ability to join with nonlawyers in producing and marketing the tapes.
On the lawyer's identification, the opinion notes that even though the tapes are not the practice of law, the lawyer must still comply with Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3), which bars conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation reflecting adversely on fitness. Nothing in the facts indicates such conduct, and merely listing the lawyer's name, office address, and area of practice emphasis should not violate the rule if the listing is accurate. The opinion expressly declines to assume the tapes are used to solicit legal business, and so does not address the advertising and solicitation rules.
In practice
The opinion holds that, under the Oregon rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, a lawyer may produce and sell general legal-information tapes with nonlawyer partners because the activity is not law practice, and may include accurate identifying information so long as it is not misleading under RPC 8.4(a)(3). The analysis turns on the threshold point that producing general legal-information materials is not the practice of law, which takes the venture outside RPC 5.4 and 5.5. Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 5.4, 5.5, and 8.4 before relying on any specific point.
Common questions
Q: Can I sell legal-information recordings to the public with non-lawyer business partners?
A: Yes. The opinion concludes producing and marketing general legal-information tapes is not the practice of law, so RPC 5.4 and 5.5 do not bar joining with nonlawyers or sharing the profits.
Q: Can I put my name and practice area on the tapes?
A: Qualified yes. The opinion concludes listing an accurate name, office address, and practice emphasis should not violate RPC 8.4(a)(3) if the listing is accurate.
Q: Does selling these tapes count as practicing law?
A: No. The opinion concludes producing and marketing general tapes about legal subjects is not the practice of law, citing Oregon State Bar v. Gilchrist.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice; assisting another) and RPC 5.4(a) and (b) (fee-sharing and partnership with nonlawyers), corresponding to Model Rules 5.5 and 5.4, and Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3) (dishonesty or misrepresentation), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 5.5(a) / Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice; assisting another)
- Oregon RPC 5.4(a), (b) / Model Rule 5.4 (fee-sharing and partnership with nonlawyers)
- Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3) / Model Rule 8.4 (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation)
Cases:
- Oregon State Bar v. Gilchrist, 272 Or 552, 538 P2d 913 (1975)
- Oregon State Bar v. Taub, 190 Or App 280, 78 P3d 114 (2003), rev den, 336 Or 534 (2004)
- In re Houchin, 290 Or 433, 622 P2d 723 (1981)
Other opinions cited:
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-101 (rev 2015) (joining with nonlawyers in non-law ventures)
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-101: Lawyer as Mediator, Trade Names, and Fee Division with a Nonlawyer
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-87: Assisting a Nonlawyer Estate-Planning Service
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-107.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2005 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.