A website wants my firm to pay an annual membership fee to host a profile and get access to anonymous consumer requests for legal help, without the site ever recommending a specific attorney. Does that comply with the advertising and fee-sharing rules?
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 rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An internet company, referred to as LM.com, solicited the inquiring attorney's firm to advertise on its website. Under the described arrangement, a participating attorney pays an annual membership fee for a profile page (photo, contact information, practice details), the future ability to post advertisements, and access to anonymous consumer requests for legal services in the states and practice areas the attorney registers for. All requests are visible to every registered attorney, who may reply showing interest and providing a profile link; consumers may contact any attorney who advertised or replied, and all attorney-client relationships form off-line without the site's involvement. The site's stated mission described it as "the Anti-Referral Service," never recommending or routing requests to a specific attorney beyond registration, with all attorney communications marked "Advertising Material."
The panel contrasted this with its own prior Opinion 2004-4, which found it impermissible for a lawyer to advertise on a drunk-driving defense website that enlisted one exclusive attorney per state and charged a consulting fee equal to $15,000 for every $100,000 in gross fees the attorney earned from leads generated through the site, a structure the panel had held violated Rule 7.2(c)'s bar on paying for recommendations and Rule 5.4(a)'s bar on fee-sharing with a nonlawyer because the fee was tied to the attorney's earned fees.
Applying Rule 5.4(a) (fee-sharing with nonlawyers) and Rule 7.2(c) (paying for recommendations, except reasonable advertising costs or usual not-for-profit referral service charges), the panel found LM.com's flat, non-percentage annual fee unlike the tied fee in the drunk-driving website opinion, and concluded it represents the reasonable cost of advertising Rule 7.2(c) permits. The panel further found the arrangement is not a referral service, since LM.com does not recommend, refer, or direct any consumer to a specific attorney and makes every request accessible to every registered attorney, with the resulting attorney-client relationship formed independently of the site. Finally, the panel found a participating attorney's reply to a consumer-initiated request is not a prohibited solicitation under Rule 7.3, because the consumer, not the attorney, initiates the contact. The panel noted a participating attorney must still comply with the other advertising rules (Rule 7.1's bar on false or misleading communications, Rule 7.2's filing and disclosure requirements, Rule 7.4 on fields of practice, and Rule 7.5 on firm and trade names) in posting a profile.
In practice
The opinion holds that, under the Rhode Island rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, a flat, non-percentage annual membership fee paid to an online attorney-marketing platform is reasonable advertising cost under Rule 7.2(c) and not fee-sharing under Rule 5.4(a), so long as the fee is not tied to fees the attorney earns from leads and the platform does not recommend or route consumers to specific attorneys. The opinion draws that line directly against its own prior Opinion 2004-4, where a percentage-of-fees consulting charge to an exclusive, single-attorney-per-state referral arrangement violated both rules.
Common questions
Q: Can I pay an online legal-marketing site a flat annual fee for a profile page and access to consumer leads?
A: Yes, according to this opinion, provided the fee is flat rather than tied to fees you earn, and the site does not recommend or route specific consumers to you.
Q: What made the panel's own prior opinion on a similar-sounding online arrangement come out differently?
A: The fee structure. In the panel's Opinion 2004-4, the fee was a $15,000 charge per $100,000 in gross fees earned from the site's leads, which the panel held was fee-sharing with a nonlawyer and payment for a referral, unlike the flat fee here.
Q: If a consumer posts a request on the site and I reply, is that a prohibited solicitation?
A: No, per this opinion. The panel held that because the consumer initiates the request, a participating attorney's reply is not a prohibited solicitation under Rule 7.3.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Rule 5.4(a) (Professional Independence of a Lawyer), the Model Rule counterpart of the same number, governing fee-sharing with nonlawyers, and Rule 7.2(c) (Advertising), quoted in full, barring payment for recommending a lawyer's services except for reasonable advertising costs or usual not-for-profit referral-service charges. It also references Rule 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services), Rule 7.3 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients), Rule 7.4 (Communication of Fields of Practice), and Rule 7.5 (Firm Names and Letterheads), the Model Rule counterparts of the same numbers, for the additional advertising requirements that still apply to a participating attorney's profile.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 5.4(a) (Professional Independence of a Lawyer) / RI Rule 5.4(a)
- MR 7.2(c) (Advertising) / RI Rule 7.2(c)
- MR 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 / RI Rule 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5
Other opinions cited:
- R.I. Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2004-4: advertising on an exclusive drunk-driving defense website with a percentage-of-fees consulting charge violated Rule 7.2(c) and Rule 5.4(a)
See also
- Alabama State Bar Op. 1997-01: Participation in a National Attorney Network
- Arizona State Bar Op. 98-10: Referrals
Source
- Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%202005-01.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Final
Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel
Opinion No. 2005-01 Request No. 885
Issued February 24, 2005
FACTS
An Internet company called Legal Match.com (hereinafter LM.com) has solicited
the inquiring attorney’s law firm to advertise the law firm’s services on its website.
LM.com provided the inquiring attorney with a description of its website and services.
According to that description, LM.com’s services are described as follows:
Attorney Services:
LegalMatch is an internet based advertising forum for
attorneys. An interested attorney can purchase an annual
membership that provides them with the following
advertising services: (1) hosting a Profile page on the LM
site (much like a personal web site( where the attorney can
provide a picture, contact information and specifics about his
or her practice such as education, past experience,
memberships, specialization or certifications (if any, and any
other personal or professional information that the attorney
may choose to provide; (2) unlimited ability to post
advertisements of specific services on the site [coming
soon]; and (3) access to anonymous requests for legal
services posted by consumers.
Attorneys can register to access requests in any states and
practice areas where they choose to advertise their services.
ALL requests are accessible to ALL attorneys who have
registered to receive them. Attorneys can reply to as many
requests as they choose. Upon reading a requests, attorneys
have the option of posting a reply, showing interests in the
matter and providing a link to their profiles and contact
information.
Client Services:
LegalMatch helps consumers in need of legal services find
the right attorney. Consumers coming to the site can (1)
view general information about hiring attorneys; (2) read
2005-01
Page 2
basic legal content in the areas of their interests, (3) browse
posted attorney advertisements in any area of law [coming
soon]; and/or (4) post an anonymous request for legal
services. The consumer is able to contact any attorney or all
attorneys who have posed advertisements or replied to the
consumer’s request. LegalMatch encourages consumers to
talk to several attorneys before retaining one to represent
them. All attorney-client relationships are formed off-line
and without LM participation.
LM.com’s mission statement reads:
Our Mission – The Anti-Referral Service!
LegalMatch’s mission is to improve access to legal services
by providing people in need of legal services with sufficient
information about their options to allow them to make an
intelligent, educated decision about their legal
representation. LegalMatch NEVER (1) refers to or
recommends any specific attorney or (2) uses any discretion,
beyond attorney registration, in routing requests to attorneys.
Site content clearly states that LM is not a referral services
and never recommends any specific attorney. Consumer
views of all attorney communications, including the attorney
response to a request for legal services and the attorney
profile, clearly state: “Advertising Material.”
ISSUE PRESENTED
The inquiring attorney asks whether the proposed arrangement with LM.com
complies with the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct.
OPINION
The Panel concludes that (a) the annual membership fee represents the reasonable
costs of advertising permitted by rule 7.2(c); (b) the arrangement is not a referral service;
(c) payment of the annual fee to LM.com is not impermissible fee-sharing with a
nonlawyer; and (d) a participating lawyer’s reply to a consumer’s request for legal services
is not a prohibited solicitation. The Panel concludes that the proposed arrangement with
LM.com is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2005-01
Page 3
REASONING
Rule 5.4(a) and Rule 7.2(c) are pertinent to this inquiry. With three narrow
exceptions which have no relevance to this inquiry, Rule 5.4(a) prohibits lawyers from
sharing fees with nonlawyers. Rule 7.2 (c) states:
(c) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for
recommending the lawyer's services, except that a lawyer
may pay the reasonable cost of advertising or written
communication permitted by this rule and may pay the usual
charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other
legal service organization.
In Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 2004-4, the Panel advised a lawyer that it was
ethically impermissible to advertise on a company’s drunk-driving defense Internet site.
The strategy of the on-line company was to enlist one drunk-driving defense attorney from
each state who would receive legal work from potential clients using the website. The
company had solicited the inquiring lawyer to be the exclusive drunk-driving defense
attorney for the State of Rhode Island. Under the plan, a participating attorney would pay
the company an initial setup fee, plus a $15,000 consulting fee for every $100,000 the
attorney received in gross fees as a result of e-mail and telephone communications
generated through the website.
The Panel concluded that the arrangement violated Rule 7.2(c) in that the $15,000
consulting fees were payments for recommending a lawyer’s services. The Panel also
concluded that the arrangement violated Rule 5.4(a) because participating attorneys shared
fees generated through the website with the on-line company, a nonlawyer.
Turning to the instant inquiry, the Panel is of the opinion that the arrangement with
LM.com is permissible. The arrangement with LM.com is not an impermissible fee-
sharing with a nonlawyer under Rule 5.4(a). A participating attorney pays an annual
membership to LM.com. The fee to LM.com is a flat fee which buys advertising and
access to requests for legal services posted by consumers. Unlike the fees in Ethics
Advisory Opinion No. 2000-04, the annual fee is not a percentage of, or otherwise linked
to, a participating attorney’s legal fees.
The proposed arrangement is not a referral service. LM.com does not recommend,
refer, or electronically direct consumers, i.e. potential clients, to a specific attorney; and all
requests for legal services by consumers are accessible to every attorney who registers to
receive them. After viewing the various advertisements on the website, or upon receiving
a lawyer’s reply to a request for legal services, a consumer contacts a participating attorney
directly. Attorney-client relationships are established off-line and without LM.com’s
participation. On the basis of these facts therefore, the annual membership fee does not
2005-01
Page 4
appear to the Panel to be a payment “for recommending the lawyer’s services” prohibited
by Rule 7.2(c).
Indeed, the Panel believes that the annual membership fee to LM.com represents
the reasonable costs of advertising which Rule 7.2(c) permits. Of course, in posting a
profile page on the LM.com website, the inquiring attorney must comply with the various
advertising rules set forth in other provisions of Rule 7. See e.g. Rule 7.1
(communications about lawyer’s services must not be false or misleading); Rule 7.2
(copies to be filed with disciplinary counsel; communication to include name of at least
one lawyer responsible for content; lawyer to disclose whether cases are referred to other
lawyers and whether client pays costs if case is taken on “no recovery – no fee” basis.
Rule 7.4 (communications relating to fields of practice); Rule 7.5 (firm names and trade
names).
Finally, the Panel does not believe that participating attorneys violate Rule 7.3
when they reply to consumers’ on-line requests for legal services. The request for legal
services is initiated by the client, and the participating lawyer’s reply is not a prohibited
solicitation under Rule 7.3.
Based on the information submitted by the inquiring attorney, the panel concludes
that (a) the annual membership fee represents the reasonable costs of advertising permitted
by rule 7.2(c); (b) and the arrangement is not a referral service; (c) payment of the annual
fee to LM.com is not impermissible fee-sharing with a nonlawyer; and (d) a participating
lawyer’s reply to a consumer’s on-line request for legal services is not a prohibited
solicitation. The Panel concludes that the proposed arrangement with LM.com is
permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2005 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.