Can lawyers run or take referrals from a lawyer referral service operated by a small association of lawyers rather than the general bar?

Plain-English summary

A small group of lawyers in a relatively small geographical section of a city formed an "association" and asked whether they could properly operate, sponsor, or approve a lawyer referral service. (The Committee noted that an earlier, never-published Opinion 371 dated April 1974 was withdrawn and replaced by this one.) The Committee concluded that participation by lawyers in such a referral service would be unethical.

It grounded the result in DR 2-103(C) and DR 2-103(D)(3), which sanction a lawyer's use of, or cooperation with, only a "lawyer referral service operated, sponsored or approved by a bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area in which the association exists." The Committee declined to set a hard rule on the geographical boundaries, membership numbers, or percentage of the bar required, but said such services are designed to benefit the public, not any particular group of attorneys (citing ABA Opinions 291, 179, 191, 205, and 227). Allowing competing groups within the same area to advertise and solicit business through the guise of group-run referral services would, it said, violate the spirit and letter of DR 2-103 and convey that the service's purpose was to secure employment for the group rather than to benefit the public.

The Committee acknowledged that legitimate local bar associations may be organized on city, county, or metropolitan lines and that mere overlap does not disqualify them, but said the small limited group in the inquiry was not what "the organized bar" and the rule contemplated. It listed the characteristics of a sanctioned service: it must be operated, sponsored, or approved by a general bar association representative of all fields of practice in a general geographical area, and must attempt to provide legal service of every kind needed by the public in that area; it must not be limited by membership or name to a specialty or by narrow geography, must purport to provide general legal service available to attorneys in every field, and must be motivated by a desire to benefit the lay public rather than to increase employment for a particular group.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1974, under the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Lawyer referral services and recommendation of a lawyer's services are now governed by Texas Rule 7.03 and ABA Model Rule 7.2(b), and the categorical advertising and solicitation restrictions of the era have been narrowed by later First Amendment decisions. 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a small group of lawyers run their own lawyer referral service?

A: No. The Committee concluded that participation in a referral service operated by a small limited group, rather than a bar association representative of the general bar, would be unethical under DR 2-103.

Q: What kind of organization may sponsor a sanctioned referral service?

A: A bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area, representing all fields of practice and providing legal service of every kind needed by the public in that area.

Q: Why was a group-run service treated as improper?

A: The Committee said it would let competing groups advertise and solicit business through the guise of a referral service, conveying that the purpose was to secure employment for the group rather than to benefit the public.

Q: Does overlap between local bar associations disqualify one?

A: No. The Committee said legitimate local bar associations organized on city, county, or metropolitan lines are not disqualified merely because of overlap in membership.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-103(C) and DR 2-103(D)(3) of the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, which permitted a lawyer to seek referrals from, or cooperate with, only a lawyer referral service operated, sponsored, or approved by a bar association representative of the general bar of its geographical area. The modern analog is Texas Rule 7.03 and ABA Model Rule 7.2(b), which addresses permissible referral arrangements and qualified lawyer referral services.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.2 (recommendation of a lawyer's services; lawyer referral services), as the modern analog
• DR 2-103(C), DR 2-103(D)(3) (former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Opinions 291, 179, 191, 205, and 227 (lawyer referral services and the organized bar)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 373: Drafting Instruments for a Lay Estate Planner's Customers
• TX Ethics Op. 397: Nonprofit Association Arranging Legal Services for Members
• TX Ethics Op. 502: Panel Attorney Remitting Fees to a Nonprofit Lawyer Referral Service

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-371/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_371.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

QUESTION PRESENTED

May a lawyer ethically participate in a lawyer referral service operated, sponsored or approved by an "association" formed by a relatively small group of lawyers, limited geographically so as to include only a fraction of the general bar of the geographical area in which the association exists?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

REFERRAL SERVICES
It is improper for a lawyer to assist or participate in a lawyer referral service unless the referral service is operated, sponsored or approved by a bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area in which the association exists.

Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 2-103 (C), (D) (3)

Former Opinion No. 371 dated April, 1974, which has never been published by this Committee, is hereby withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor.

The inquiry giving rise to this opinion concerned a small group of lawyers located within a relatively small geographical section of a city in this state who joined together in an "association" and then inquired as to whether they could properly form a "lawyer referral service" operated, sponsored or approved by their group. It is the opinion of this Committee that participation by lawyers in such a referral service would be unethical.

DR 2-103 (C) provides: "A lawyer may not request a person or organization to recommend employment, as a private practitioner, of himself, his partner, or associate, except that he may request referrals from a lawyer referral service operated, sponsored or approved by a bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area in which the association exists and may pay its fees incident thereto." (Emphasis ours)

DR 2-103 (D), in its relevant portions, provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a person or organization that recommends, furnishes or pays for legal services to promote the use of his services or those of his partners or associates. However, he may cooperate in a dignified manner with the legal service activities of . . .

(3) A lawyer referral service operated, sponsored, or approved by a bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area in which the association exists."

The question presented obviously requires some interpretation of the phrase "a bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area in which the association exists." While the Committee does not deem it proper to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the geographical boundaries of a bar association which may properly operate, sponsor or approve a lawyer referral service sanctioned by DR 2-103 (C) or (D), or as to its number of members or percentage of the general bar required to make such an association representative of such general bar, general guidelines based upon the legitimate purposes for sanctioning of lawyer referral services are available, and do provide an answer to the particular inquiry here made. Such referral services are designed to benefit the public, and should not operate for the benefit of any particular group of attorneys. ABA Opinion 291. See also ABA Opinions 179, 191, 205 and 227. To allow various competing groups of attorneys within the same general geographical area to advertise and solicit business through the guise of lawyer referral services operated, sponsored or approved by "associations" formed by such groups would violate both the spirit and the letter of DR 2-103. Such would convey to the public an implication that the principal purpose of such referral services was to secure professional employment for the group being advertised, rather than to benefit the public by providing access to legal services.

The Committee is mindful of the existence of local bar associations, organized and operated for legitimate professional purposes, with geographical representation sometimes based upon city, county or metropolitan lines. The mere possibility of overlap in membership because of such distinction of geographical representation does not necessarily exclude any such bar association as one representative of the general bar of the geographical area in which it exists. However, "the organized bar" referred to by ABA Opinion 227 and a "bar association representative of the general bar of the geographical area in which the association exists" referred to in DR 2-103 clearly do not contemplate small, limited groups of lawyers such as the one referred to in the inquiry under discussion.

The lawyer referral plan sanctioned by DR 2-103 should be broadly representative of the general bar in the community. It must be open to lawyers generally, and not just to attorneys practicing a certain specialty. It must attempt to provide service for all persons who have legal questions or problems in all fields of the law.

In conclusion, we hold that the lawyer referral service contemplated by the relatively small group of lawyers making the inquiry is not one within the guidelines sanctioned by DR 2-103, which should have the following characteristics:
(1) It must be operated, sponsored or approved by a general bar association, representative of all fields of practice in a general geographical area; and
(2) It must attempt to provide a legal service of every kind and character needed by the public in the general geographical area.
Such service must not be limited, either by membership of participating attorneys or by name, to trial practice, probate practice, or some specialized field, nor by narrow geographical limitations making it unrepresentative of the general bar of the community. It must purport to provide a general legal service and must be available to attorneys in every field of law. It must be motivated by a desire to benefit the lay public and operated in such a way as to avoid the impression that it is actuated by selfish desire to increase professional employment for any particular group of lawyers.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 371 (1974)