I want to offer free senior-law seminars at senior centers and assisted living communities, and to promote them by phoning the facility directors. Is calling those directors a direct solicitation barred by Rule 7.3?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney prepared a lecture series aimed at senior citizens, planning to conduct free seminars at senior centers and residential assisted living communities (not for residents of nursing homes). The attorney promoted the seminars through local newspaper advertisements and proposed also to promote them by telephoning the directors of the senior centers and assisted living communities to ask about their interest. The attorney asked whether such telephone contact with directors was a direct solicitation of a prospective client prohibited by Rule 7.3.

The Panel concluded the direct telephone contact does not violate Rule 7.3. It set out Rule 7.3(a), which prohibits in-person solicitation, including live telephone contact, of prospective clients with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive is pecuniary gain. The Panel reasoned that the proposed communication was not directed to a specific prospective client: the prospective clients and ultimate recipients of legal services would be the individual senior attendees, not the directors. Citing the comment to Rule 7.3 and a Maryland State Bar ethics opinion (88-48), the Panel explained that the rule does not bar contacting a representative of an organization that may be interested in establishing a group or prepaid legal plan for its members to inform the entity of the plan's availability.

The Panel added that any informational brochures or pamphlets the attorney sends to the directors after the initial telephone contact, to be posted at the facilities or otherwise made available to prospective attendees, must comply with Rules 7.3(b), 7.4, and 7.1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 (Opinion 96-21, issued September 12, 1996), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 7.3, 7.4, and 7.1 as they stood at the time. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, and the advertising and solicitation rules have been amended repeatedly since. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 I call the director of a senior center to pitch a free legal seminar?

A: The Panel said yes. Because the directors are not the prospective clients, the call is not a direct solicitation of a prospective client barred by Rule 7.3.

Q: Who counts as the prospective client here?

A: The individual senior attendees who might later seek legal services, not the facility directors. The Panel drew that distinction to place the call outside Rule 7.3's prohibition.

Q: Do the printed materials I leave at the facility have to follow any rules?

A: Yes. The Panel said brochures or pamphlets sent to the directors and made available to prospective attendees must comply with Rules 7.3(b), 7.4, and 7.1.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients), 7.4 (communication of fields of practice), and 7.1 (misleading communications), the analogs of Model Rules 7.3, 7.4, and 7.1. The Panel applied the Rule 7.3 comment permitting contact with an organization's representative about a group or prepaid plan, distinguishing that from prohibited solicitation of the individual members.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 / RI RPC 7.3(a), 7.3(b) (direct contact with prospective clients)
• MR 7.4 / RI RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice)
• MR 7.1 / RI RPC 7.1 (misleading communications)

Other opinions cited:

• Maryland State Bar Association, Committee on Ethics, Opinion 88-48 (1988): a lawyer may contact organizations' representatives in their fiduciary capacities but may not solicit individual members

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 96-01: an employer may announce a lawyer's fixed-fee legal services to employees under Rule 7.3
• RI EAP Opinion 96-03: direct-mail advertisement to businesses affected by a regulatory change under Rule 7.3

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%2096-21.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION # 96-21, - REQUEST # 660
Issued - September 12, 1996

FACTS:

The inquiring attorney has prepared a lecture series targeted specifically at senior citizens. The attorney plans to conduct seminars at various senior centers and residential assisted living communities. The seminars are not intended for the aged or infirmed residents of nursing homes. There will be no charge for the seminars. The attorney promotes the seminars through advertisement in local newspapers. In addition, the inquiring attorney proposes to promote the seminars by telephoning directors of such senior centers and assisted living communities to inquire about their interest in the seminars.

ISSUE PRESENTED:

The inquiring attorney asks whether telephone contact with the directors of senior centers and residential assisted living communities to inquire about their interest in a lecture series on senior issues is a direct solicitation of a prospective client which is prohibited by Rule 7.3 of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.

OPINION:

The direct telephone contact under these circumstances does not violate Rule 7.3.

REASONING:

Rule 7.3(a) prohibits in-person solicitation, including live telephone contact, of prospective clients. It states:

A lawyer may not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. The term "solicit" includes contact in person, by telephone or telegraph or by other communication directed to a specific recipient and includes any written form of communication directed to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this rule.

The form of communication proposed by the inquiring attorney is not directed to a specific prospective client. The prospective clients and ultimate recipients of legal services which could result from the seminars are the attendees, that is, the individual senior members. The directors are not the prospective clients. The Rule does not prohibit an attorney from contacting a representative of an organization or group that may be interested in establishing a group or a prepaid legal plan for its members, insureds, beneficiaries, or other third parties to inform such entities of the availability and details of a plan or arrangement which the lawyer is willing to offer. Comment to Rule 7.3. See, Maryland State Bar Association, Committee of Ethics, Opinion 88-48 (1988) (lawyer may personally contact representatives of organizations in their fiduciary capacities to solicit business but may not solicit individual members). The Panel concludes that the inquiring attorney may telephone directors of such senior centers and assisted living communities to inquire of their interest in the seminars.

The Panel further advises that any informational brochures or pamphlets that the inquiring attorney sends to the directors after the initial telephone contact, which brochures or pamphlets will be posted at the facilities to inform prospective senior attendees or which otherwise will be made available for review by prospective attendees, must comply with Rules 7.3(b), 7.4 and 7.1.