I want to mail people who might qualify for the Victims' Compensation Fund. Is that allowed, and what do I have to tell them about fees and costs?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney sought advice concerning the ethical propriety of a letter the attorney intended to send to people who may qualify for compensation from the Victims' Compensation Fund.

The panel noted that such a mailing is permissible under the holding of Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), as long as the letter is truthful and not deceptive.

The panel further concluded that the attorney's letter should clearly state that the client is responsible for "costs" if it is the attorney's intention to have the client pay for such "costs." The panel took the position that this distinction is necessary to avoid misleading the potential lay client, because a layperson is generally unaware of the difference between "legal fees" and "costs."

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it relies on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Shapero permitting truthful targeted-mail solicitation. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, and the solicitation rules have been amended since. Subsequent rule amendments or 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer send targeted letters to people who may have a claim?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The panel noted such a mailing is permissible under Shapero as long as the letter is truthful and not deceptive.

Q: What must the letter say about costs?

A: The panel concluded the letter should clearly state that the client is responsible for "costs" if the attorney intends the client to pay them.

Q: Why did the panel single out the fees-versus-costs distinction?

A: The panel reasoned that a layperson is generally unaware of the difference between "legal fees" and "costs," so the letter must be clear to avoid misleading the potential client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addresses truthful, targeted-mail solicitation, the subject of Rule 7.3, read together with Rule 7.1's bar on false or misleading communications, corresponding to Model Rules 7.3 and 7.1. The panel did not cite these rules by number; it grounded its conclusion in Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, which held that states may not categorically ban truthful, non-deceptive targeted-mail solicitation, and then addressed the letter's clarity about who bears "costs."

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion cites no Rule of Professional Conduct by number. Targeted-mail solicitation is the subject of RI RPC 7.3 / MR 7.3, read with the anti-misleading requirement of RI RPC 7.1 / MR 7.1.

Statutes:

• None cited (the Victims' Compensation Fund is referenced as the claimants' source, not quoted).

Cases:

• Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988): states may not categorically prohibit truthful, non-deceptive targeted-mail solicitation.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-45: Marketing Letters Must Say Advertisement
• RI EAP Op. 95-21: Mailing Realtors Ad Coupons
• RI EAP Op. 95-55: A Lawyer's Name in a Shared Television Advertisement

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%2091-24.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 #91-24, Request #126
Issued May 23, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning the ethical propriety of a letter the attorney intends to send to people who may qualify for compensation from the Victims' Compensation Fund.

The Panel takes this opportunity to note that such a mailing is permissible under the holding of Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), as long as the letter is truthful and not deceptive. The Panel is of the opinion that the attorney's letter should clearly state that the client is responsible for "costs" if it is the attorney's intention to have the client pay for such "costs." The Panel takes the position that such a distinction is necessary to avoid misleading the potential layman client because the layman is generally unaware of the difference between "legal fees" and "costs."

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.