Can lawyers (here, law professors) operate a for-profit legal research service for other attorneys and announce it by mail and bar-journal advertising?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1974. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion E-74-1 considered a corporation organized by law-school faculty lawyers, as a private profit-making venture independent of the law school, to perform legal research for practicing attorneys and incorporate the results in memoranda. The service would be offered only to members of the State Bar of Wisconsin, drawing on the law school's resources, and would be advertised by direct mailing and in the Wisconsin Bar Bulletin.
The committee noted that the then-current Code prohibited all forms of direct and indirect solicitation and advertising, and that in Wisconsin a lawyer could not hold himself out as a specialist, but it found exceptions applicable here. A lawyer may, under clearly defined conditions, solicit professional employment from other lawyers by announcing his availability to serve them in a particular branch of law, and the conduct of a legal research service by lawyers for lawyers is not a specialized legal service. Reviewing ABA Informal Opinions 907 and 1046 and related materials, the committee concluded the proposed service could be operated with ethical propriety provided proper safeguards were observed.
The committee stressed caution about the advertising and solicitation Canons given the plan to advertise by direct mail and in the Bar Bulletin. Pointing to prior Milwaukee Bar Association opinions, it required that the services be performed by an attorney totally responsible for them, that announcements go to local attorneys only, and that any published announcement be a brief, dignified notice in the local legal journal that does not represent special experience or expertise. It cautioned that no legal opinions should be rendered, and that the activity should be conducted in a separate facility rather than out of a private law office. The committee did not pass on questions of unauthorized practice of law, but concluded that, subject to that reservation and the proper safeguards, the service was not inherently prohibited if operated as proposed for lawyers only.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1974, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and also before Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which struck categorical bans on lawyer advertising. It applies the former Code's broad prohibitions on advertising and solicitation as they stood in 1974. The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.2 / Model Rule 7.2 (advertising) and SCR 20:7.3 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients). Subsequent rule amendments, court decisions, or later opinions have changed the analysis substantially. 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 lawyers run a for-profit legal research service for other attorneys?
A: Under this opinion, yes, with safeguards. The committee concluded the venture could be operated with ethical propriety, treating a research service by lawyers for lawyers as not a specialized legal service.
Q: Why was advertising the service allowed when lawyer advertising was then banned?
A: The committee relied on the exception permitting a lawyer to announce his availability to serve other lawyers in a particular branch of law, while still requiring announcements be limited to local attorneys and be brief and dignified, without claims of special expertise.
Q: What limits did the committee place on the service?
A: It required a responsible supervising attorney, no rendering of legal opinions, operation in a separate facility rather than a private law office, and strict observance of the advertising and solicitation Canons; it did not pass on any unauthorized-practice question.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the former Code's advertising and solicitation prohibitions, with the recognized exception for a lawyer announcing availability to serve other lawyers, to a faculty-run legal research corporation. The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.2 / Model Rule 7.2 (advertising) and SCR 20:7.3 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 7.2 / SCR 20:7.2 (advertising); former Code advertising Canons
- Model Rule 7.3 / SCR 20:7.3 (solicitation of clients)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Informal Opinion 907 and Informal Opinion 1046: legal research services by lawyers for lawyers
- Milwaukee Bar Association Opinions 3-1963 and 7-1964: safeguards on announcements
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-79-10: "Practice Limited To" Advertising
- WI Ethics Op. E-82-1: Law Firm Newsletter and Direct-Mail Advertising
Source
- Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-74-1.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1974 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.