I want to mail a letter advertising my legal services to homeowners 65 and older whom I don't know. It's marked 'Advertisement' and offers a free consultation. Does this comply with Rule 7.3?

Plain-English summary

The attorney asked whether he could properly send a letter advertising his legal services to people he did not know, described as homeowners aged 65 or older. He submitted a sample letter for review: the word "Advertisement" is centered above the text, the letter asks whether the recipient is aware of certain aspects of the law and concerned about the effect on his or her life or estate, states that the attorney's office "has a special interest in this area of law" and advises many clients in it, and closes by inviting the recipient to call for a free initial consultation.

The panel noted as a threshold matter that it is not equipped to "embark on the task of editing" documents and cannot give general approval to a document as a whole, citing its own Digest of Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 87-3, and that it assumed all factual assertions in the letter are accurate for purposes of the opinion. The panel quoted Rule 7.3, "Direct Contact with Prospective Clients," which requires compliance with Rule 7.3(b) for written communications to prospective clients absent a pre-existing professional or familial relationship or a pro bono effort with no pecuniary gain, neither exception being applicable here. It quoted Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a), requiring such communications to be plainly marked "advertisement" on the envelope and at the top of each page in type one size larger than the largest type used in the communication; Rule 7.3(b)(1)(b), requiring a copy to be sent to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel and retained by the lawyer for three years; and Rule 7.3(b)(2)'s prohibitions on communications directed at a person known to be represented in the specific matter, a person who has said they do not want such communications, or communications involving coercion, false or misleading statements, or targeting persons whose physical, emotional, or mental state makes it unlikely they would exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer. The panel held that the word "Advertisement" at the top of the letter and on the envelope must be in larger print to comply with Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a), and that with that change, the letter as submitted is proper under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in February 1990, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 7.3 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis, including Rule 7.3's current requirements for written solicitation. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What size does the "Advertisement" label need to be on a direct-mail solicitation letter?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a) requires the word "advertisement" to be plainly marked on the envelope and at the top of each page in type one size larger than the largest type used in the written communication.

Q: Do I need to file a copy of the letter anywhere?

A: Yes. The opinion states Rule 7.3(b)(1)(b) requires a copy of each such written communication to be sent to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel, with another copy retained by the lawyer for three years (or, for identical mailings to multiple recipients, a single copy with a list of names and addresses).

Q: Will the panel review my entire advertisement and approve it as written?

A: No. The panel stated it is not equipped to "embark on the task of editing" documents and cannot give general approval to a document as a whole, and it assumed the letter's factual assertions were accurate for purposes of its opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 7.3 of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, governing direct written contact with prospective clients, including the marking, filing, and retention requirements of Rule 7.3(b)(1) and the content restrictions of Rule 7.3(b)(2), to a proposed direct-mail advertisement targeting senior homeowners.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients)
• RI RPC 7.3(b), as adopted November 15, 1988

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP Digest of Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 87-3, cited for the panel's position that it cannot edit or give general approval to a document as a whole.

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 501: Solicitation

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%2090-15.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION 90-15, REQUEST 490
Issued February 27, 1990

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether he may properly send a certain letter advertising his legal services to people he does not know who he describes as homeowners aged 65 or older.

The attorney submits a sample copy of the letter he proposes to send for Panel review. The word "Advertisement" is centered on the page, above the text of the letter. The letter first asks if the recipient is aware of certain pertinent aspects of the law, and then inquires if the recipient is concerned about the effect on his or her life or on his or her estate. The letter then states that the attorney's office "has a special interest in this area of law" and notes that the office advises many clients in this area. The letter closes by suggesting that the recipient may call the attorney's office number and receive a free initial consultation.

As a threshold matter, the Panel is not equipped to "embark on the task of editing" documents, and therefore cannot give general approval to a document as a whole. See, e.g. Digest of Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 87-3. For purposes of rendering this advisory opinion, the Panel assumed that all factual assertions in the attorney's letter are accurate.

Rule 7.3, titled "Direct contact with Prospective Clients" provides that an attorney must comply with the requirements of Rule 7.3(b) when communicating, in writing, with a prospective client. The rule provides exceptions, not applicable here, for situations in which the attorney either has a pre-existing professional or familial relationship with the prospective client or when the communication is part of an effort pro bono publico which will not result in pecuniary gain. Rule 7.3(b) provides:

(1) Written communication to prospective clients with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship are subject to the following requirements:

(a) Such written communications shall be plainly marked "advertisement" on the face of the envelope and at the top of each page of the written communication in type one size larger than the largest type used in the written communication.

(b) A copy of each such written communication shall be sent to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel and another copy shall be retained by the lawyer for three (3) years. If written communications identical in content are sent to two (2) or more prospective clients, the lawyer may comply with this requirement by sending a single copy together with a list of the names and addresses of persons to whom the written communication was sent to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel as well as retaining the same information.

(2) A lawyer shall not send, or knowingly permit to be sent, on behalf of the lawyer, the lawyer's firm, the lawyer's partner, an associate, or any other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer's firm a written communication to any prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment if:

(a) The written communication concerns a specific matter and the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the person to whom the communication is directed is represented by a lawyer in the matter;

(b) It has been made known to the lawyer that the person does not want to receive such communications from the lawyer;

(c) The communication involves coercion, duress, fraud, overreaching, harassment, intimidation, or undue influence;

(d) The communication contains a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement or claim or is improper under Rule 7.1;

(e) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional, or mental state of the person makes it unlikely that the person would exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer.

The word "Advertisement" at the top of the letter and on the face of the envelope must be in "larger" print in compliance with Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a). With the exception of this change, the Panel takes the position that the letter the attorney has submitted is proper under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.