Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

May a Vermont lawyer refer clients to an online document service the lawyer owns?

Short answer Opinion 11-01 allowed referral to the lawyer-owned law-related service if written, objectively reasonable measures ensured users understood it provided no legal services or lawyer-client protections. The proposed two-sentence notice alone was insufficient in every case.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
2011
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2011. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2011
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

An estate-planning lawyer owned an online service for organizing and storing personal information and documents and proposed to recommend it to clients and others. The committee classified the service as law-related under Rule 5.7 because it concerned information relevant to legal services and could be provided separately by nonlawyers.

The committee said the lawyer could recommend the service if the lawyer took objectively reasonable written measures to ensure users understood it was not a legal service and carried none of the protections of a lawyer-client relationship. The proposed two-sentence disclosure was not enough by itself in all cases. The opinion called for information tailored to each user's circumstances and sophistication and said users should be told they were not required to use the lawyer's legal services if they subscribed.

In practice

The opinion permits the described referral when the lawyer's explanation reaches the user's actual understanding of the service's separate status and missing lawyer-client protections. It treats the proposed generic notice as a starting point whose adequacy depends on the individual receiving it.

Common questions

Q: Was the online storage business a law-related service?

A: Yes. The committee said its organization and storage functions related to information that could be used in legal services, while the business could operate separately from legal representation.

Q: Did the proposed two-sentence disclosure satisfy Rule 5.7 on its own?

A: Not in every case. The committee said the lawyer had to supplement it with information tailored to the individual user's understanding.

Q: Did a subscriber have to hire the lawyer for legal work?

A: No. The opinion said users should be told they were not obliged to use the lawyer's legal services when choosing the storage service.

Background and rules framework

The committee applied Rule 5.7 on law-related services and cited Rule 1.0(e) on informed consent and Rule 1.0(f) on actual knowledge. It discussed Vermont Opinion 2009-2 on a separate financial-planning business.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct 5.7, 1.0(e), 1.0(f)

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinion 2009-2, separate nonlegal financial-planning services

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2011. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace