Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

May a Vermont lawyer split advertising costs with a realtor and lender without paying for referrals?

Short answer Opinion 12-01 permits payment for actual shared marketing costs if the lawyer controls compliant content, keeps the businesses distinct, and does not pay for referrals; it separately addresses any resulting informal referral relationship.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
2012
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2012. 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 2012
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 Not binding precedent.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

A lawyer proposed splitting monthly print and online marketing costs three ways with a realtor and lender. The lawyer's share would not vary with new clients or particular transactions and would come from the law office's general account.

The committee allowed payment for actual marketing services and costs rather than client referrals. It required the lawyer to have access to and control over advertising content, which had to meet Rules 7.1 and 7.2. The materials could not imply a partnership or shared business with the nonlawyers. Rule 5.4 protected independent professional judgment.

The proposed agreement was for advertising, not reciprocal referrals. The opinion said any informal referrals that later arose would trigger separate restrictions, disclosure to clients, and attention to possible conflicts. The committee expressly did not decide compliance with the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act or other nonethics law.

In practice

For the described campaign, the committee allowed the lawyer's fixed share of genuine advertising costs while requiring separation of the law practice from the realtor's and lender's businesses in the materials. Its conclusion did not cover payments tied to specific referrals.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer pay the realtor for the advertising campaign?

A: Yes, for actual marketing costs and services rather than specific client referrals, with the lawyer able to review and control the content.

Q: Did the opinion approve any later referral arrangement automatically?

A: No. It identified additional rules and client disclosures that would apply if informal referrals resulted from the relationship.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Vermont Rules 7.1, 7.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.7 to shared advertising and possible referrals. It also cited New York County Lawyers' Association Formal Opinion 733 on accurate characterization of separate businesses.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.7

Other opinions cited:

  • New York County Lawyers' Association Formal Opinion 733

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2012. 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