Can I accept a personal-injury referral from a chiropractor or doctor who found the patient through telemarketing off accident reports?
Texas Ethics Opinion 524: Accepting a Referral From a Provider Who Solicited the Patient
Short answer: The Committee concluded that a lawyer does not violate Rule 7.03(b) by accepting a referral from a health-care provider who solicited the referred patient through telemarketing solely to provide health care, so long as the lawyer pays nothing for the referral and does not use the arrangement to circumvent Rule 7.03(b).
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Plain-English summary
A plaintiff's personal-injury attorney received client referrals from chiropractors and medical doctors. Those providers obtained patients through telemarketers who located injured parties from accident reports and urged them to seek care from the providers. The solicitation went no further than securing the providers' employment to treat the injured parties. At a patient's request, the providers would give the patient a list of attorneys they had worked with in the past. The providers were not paid by the attorney for any referral, and the attorneys did not set up the telemarketing.
The Committee concluded that, on these facts, the attorney did not violate Rule 7.03(b). It assumed the attorney did nothing to induce or entice the providers to secure professional employment, and reasoned that absent facts showing the lawyer was circumventing Rule 7.03 by having a nonlawyer solicit cases for her, the lawyer could accept the referral; the telemarketing on the providers' behalf was limited to securing patients for treatment and did not taint the referral. The Committee added that if the arrangement was not consideration for other agreements, and as long as giving the list to the patient did not amount to funneling clients to the attorney, the referral did not violate Rule 7.03(b); otherwise the referral had to be refused under Rules 7.03(b) and 7.06.
The Committee expressly declined to interpret statutory authority such as Section 38.12 of the Texas Penal Code and Section 82.065 of the Texas Government Code, so the opinion did not address the propriety of the health-care providers' conduct under those or other laws.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998, under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that took effect January 1, 1990. Texas did not adopt the ABA's Ethics 2000 revisions; its rules have been amended only piecemeal since (including the March 1, 2005 amendment to the fee rule, Rule 1.04, and the comprehensive 2021 revisions adopted by Texas Supreme Court order). The solicitation and advertising rules in Part VII were among the rules later revised. 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: Can I take a referral from a doctor who got the patient through telemarketing?
A: The Committee concluded yes, on these facts. A lawyer does not violate Rule 7.03(b) by accepting a referral from a health-care provider who solicited the patient through telemarketing solely to provide health care, provided the lawyer pays nothing for the referral and does not use the arrangement to circumvent Rule 7.03(b).
Q: What would make accepting such a referral improper?
A: The opinion concluded the referral must be refused under Rules 7.03(b) and 7.06 if the arrangement is consideration for other agreements, or if giving the attorney list to the patient amounts to funneling clients to the attorney. The lawyer also may not induce or entice the provider to secure employment, or have the nonlawyer solicit cases on the lawyer's behalf.
Q: Did the opinion bless the health-care provider's telemarketing?
A: No. The Committee expressly declined to interpret statutes such as Penal Code Section 38.12 and Government Code Section 82.065, and did not decide the legality of the providers' conduct under those or other laws.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.03(b) (ABA Model Rules 7.2 and 7.3), which bars a lawyer from paying or giving anything of value to a nonlawyer for soliciting or referring clients, together with Rule 7.03(d) (no fee for employment obtained in violation of Rule 7.03) and Rule 7.06. The analysis turned on whether the lawyer paid for the referral or used the provider's telemarketing as a way to have a nonlawyer solicit cases on the lawyer's behalf.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.2 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; payment for referrals)
- MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
- Texas Disciplinary Rules 7.03(b), 7.03(d), and 7.06
Statutes (referenced; the Committee declined to interpret them):
- Tex. Penal Code Section 38.12
- Tex. Gov't Code Section 82.065
See also
- TX Ethics Op. 543: In-House Counsel Accepting Patient Referrals From a Health-Care Provider
- TX Ethics Op. 547: Medical Group Funding a Law Firm's Advertising for Referrals
- TX Ethics Op. 548: Law Firm Sponsor Listing on a Nonprofit's Website
Source
- Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-524/
- Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_524.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative. The source text encoded curly quotation marks, apostrophes, and omission marks with unreadable characters; these have been restored as standard quotation marks, apostrophes, and ellipses.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Does a lawyer violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules) by accepting a referral from a health-care provider, when the lawyer knows the referred individual was solicited by the health-care provider for purposes of providing health care.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A plaintiff's attorney practicing primarily personal injury law has clients referred to her by chiropractors and medical doctors. These health-care providers obtain clients through telemarketers who locate potential patients from accident reports. Those individuals identified on the accident report as injured parties are contacted by the telemarketers and advised to seek health care for their injuries from the health-care providers on whose behalf the solicitation is made. The scope of the solicitation does not extend beyond securing employment for the health-care providers to treat the injured parties. At the patient's request, the health-care providers will give the patient a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of attorneys with whom the health-care providers have worked in the past. The health-care providers are not compensated by the attorney for the referral, nor did the attorneys set up the telemarketing scheme.
DISCUSSION
Rule 7.03 of the Rules addresses issues involving prohibited solicitations and payment by attorneys. Specifically, Rule 7.03(b) states in part, that "[a] lawyer shall not pay, give or offer to pay or give anything of value to a person not licensed to practice law for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective clients to any lawyer or firm ..."
Further, Rule 7.03(d) provides in part that "[a] lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge for, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of Rule 7.03 ... (b) ..." Additionally, see Rule 7.06.
This committee assumes that the attorney who accepts the referral under the circumstances described in the fact situation has done nothing by way of inducement or enticement to the health-care providers to secure professional employment. Absent facts demonstrating that the lawyer in this case is circumventing Rule 7.03 by having a non-lawyer solicit cases on her behalf, this committee concludes that the attorney may accept the referral. The solicitation by telemarketing on behalf of the health-care providers is limited to securing patients for medical treatment and does not taint the referral.
The committee does not interpret statutory authority, such as Section 38.12 of the Texas Penal Code and Section 82.065 of the Texas Government Code. This opinion, therefore, does not address the propriety of the conduct of the health-care providers under those or other provisions of law.
If the arrangement between the health-care provider and the attorney is not consideration for other agreements, and, as long as providing the list to the referred individual does not constitute funneling to the attorney, the referral does not violate Rule 7.03(b). Otherwise, the referral must be refused under Rules 7.03(b) and 7.06.
CONCLUSION
An attorney does not violate Rule 7.03(b) of the Rules if she accepts a referral from a health-care provider who has solicited the referred patient through telemarketing solely for the purpose of providing health care. The committee does not in this instance attempt to decide the legality of the conduct of the health-care provider under the facts presented. The lawyer, however, must not participate in any arrangement with the health-care provider to circumvent Rule 7.03(b).
Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 524 (1998)