Can a bank recommend a particular estate-planning attorney to its customers, where the attorney's referrals benefit the bank?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1979. 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-79-4 considered a bank that wanted to inform area residents about the importance of estate planning and refer them to a particular estate-planning attorney, who happened to be the son of the bank's president and majority shareholder. The attorney would make periodic trips to the bank to meet prospective customers and would be employed by the individual clients rather than by the bank. The question was whether the bank could ethically recommend that attorney's services.
The committee concluded the arrangement was unethical solicitation. It relied on DR 2-103(B), which prohibited an attorney from giving anything of value in exchange for solicitation of clients by a third party, and found that the bank received a benefit, more and more-satisfied customers. The committee said that allowing an attorney to permit others to solicit business for him, when the attorney is barred from such solicitation personally, would eviscerate the rules against solicitation. It distinguished ABA Informal Opinion 1236, where the non-profit nature of the recommending club precluded any benefit to the club, noting that no such factor was present here. Citing EC 2-8 ("A layman is best served if the recommendation is disinterested"), and ABA Informal Opinions C-471 and C-679, the committee held that the relationship was an improper intervention of an intermediary. It expressly adopted Texas Bar Opinion 373, which held that a lawyer may not participate in an arrangement with a layperson offering estate-planning services whereby the lawyer drafts instruments for people referred to him by the layperson, finding that situation identical to the one before it.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1979, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Code's DR 2-103(B) and EC 2-8. The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.2 / Model Rule 7.2 (giving anything of value for recommending a lawyer's services) and SCR 20:7.3 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients). 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 mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a bank steer its customers to a particular estate-planning lawyer?
A: The committee concluded that it is improper where the bank benefits from the arrangement, because the lawyer is then using a lay intermediary to solicit clients he could not solicit personally.
Q: Did it matter that the attorney was the bank president's son?
A: The committee's analysis turned on the bank's benefit, not the family relationship; it found the bank received more and more-satisfied customers, which made the conduct improper solicitation under DR 2-103(B).
Q: When is a recommending organization treated differently?
A: The committee distinguished a non-profit club (ABA Informal Opinion 1236) whose non-profit nature precluded any benefit, noting that factor was determinative and absent in the bank's case.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted the former Code's DR 2-103(B), barring a lawyer from giving value for third-party solicitation, and EC 2-8 on disinterested recommendations. The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.2 / Model Rule 7.2 (recommendations and payment for them) 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 (giving value for recommending the lawyer's services); former Code DR 2-103(B)
- Model Rule 7.3 / SCR 20:7.3 (solicitation of clients)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Informal Opinions C-471, 1236, and C-679: lay intermediaries and solicitation
- Texas Bar Opinion 373 (adopted): layperson estate-planning referral arrangements
- Idaho Opinion 8a
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-80-19: Law Firm Sponsorship of Public Legal Seminars
- WI Ethics Op. E-82-8: Attorney Contacting Seminar Attendees
- WI Ethics Op. E-83-16: Follow-Up Calls After Mailed 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-79-4.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1979 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.