Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a Vermont firm accept a client referred by the spouse of one of its nonlawyer employees?

Short answer Opinion 85-09 found no improper solicitation where the referring spouse acted independently, was not the firm's agent, and the employee was not promoting the firm. The committee said the firm should disclose the family employment connection to the client.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1985
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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 doctor told a patient's spouse that a medical-malpractice claim might exist. The spouse said she would consult a lawyer, and the doctor recommended the requesting firm. The doctor's own spouse worked for that firm as a nonlawyer employee, a relationship the patient and spouse had not been told about.

The committee found no solicitation by the firm on these facts. The doctor was not its agent, and there was no indication that the employee was promoting the firm or seeking clients. The opinion distinguished that situation from using an employee or another agent to solicit cases for the firm. It said the firm should disclose the doctor's family connection to its employee to the client to avoid an appearance of impropriety.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Did the doctor's referral make the firm responsible for improper solicitation?

A: No. The committee found no firm or agency involvement in the recommendation on the stated facts.

Q: Would an employee acting as the firm's solicitation agent raise a different issue?

A: Yes. The opinion said former DR 1-102(A)(2) barred circumvention of a disciplinary rule through another person's acts and discussed DR 2-103(A) for firm-directed referrals.

Q: Did the committee call for disclosure?

A: Yes. It said the firm should tell the client that the doctor's spouse was an employee of the firm.

Background and rules framework

The committee applied the former Vermont Code's solicitation restrictions, particularly DR 2-103(A) and DR 1-102(A)(2). Its conclusion depended on the absence of an agency relationship or employee campaign to solicit clients.

Citations and references

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

  • DR 2-103(A) and DR 1-102(A)(2).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1985. 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