May a Vermont lawyer hand cards or advertising circulars to unrepresented criminal defendants at court to seek their cases?

Short answer Opinion 98-03 says former DR 2-104 barred the proposed in-person solicitation at court, despite its separate permission for letters or advertising circulars sent by other means.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1998

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1998. 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 Not binding precedent.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 solo criminal-defense lawyer regularly at District Court asked whether he could approach pro se defendants there and offer a business card or circular in hope of being hired. He asked whether the former Code's allowance for letters and advertising circulars covered this method.

The committee read the 1989 changes to former DR 2-104 and EC 2-10 as permitting targeted mailings while maintaining a prohibition on in-person and telephone solicitation. Handing cards or circulars to defendants in or at the courthouse was an in-person approach, so the committee found it prohibited. It expressly did not decide constitutional advertising issues.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history states that the Rules of Professional Conduct applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999. Later amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this opinion as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did the form of a printed circular make courthouse handouts permissible?

A: No. The committee treated handing it to defendants at court as in-person solicitation, despite the separate permission for written advertising.

Q: Did the committee decide the First Amendment question?

A: No. It expressly reserved constitutional questions about lawyer advertising.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former DR 2-104 and the 1989 revisions to EC 2-10, distinguishing targeted mail from in-person approaches. It noted DR 2-101's separate false-or-misleading communication rule.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-104, DR 2-101, and EC 2-10

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1998. 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