Can a lawyer use insurance agents to solicit clients for a master pension plan the lawyer's firm would handle?

Plain-English summary

Informal Opinion 4/67 considered the propriety of an attorney participating in the solicitation and sale of a multibusiness master pension plan through a corporation organized for that purpose, where the attorney originated the company and acts as trustee for the master plan. The plan was designed for small employers who could not afford an individually designed plan; various employers subscribed and funded benefits through insurance policies issued by various insurers, paying a joinder fee and an annual administration fee. The attorney maintained there was considerably less legal work on such pre-qualified plans than on individually tailored plans, and that a number of employers selected his law firm to qualify their phase of the plan although they could choose any attorney.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee was of the opinion that there was no illegal practice of law here, but that the Ethics Committee should examine the activity. On its consideration, the committee concluded that the solicitation activities of certain insurance agents on behalf of the lawyer were improper under Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and had to be terminated. The opinion noted that under Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility the result would be the same.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1967, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics (and noted Canon 2 of the Code). The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.3 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients) and SCR 20:7.2 / Model Rule 7.2 (communications and the bar on giving anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services). Solicitation rules have since been reshaped by court decisions on lawyer advertising. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer use insurance agents to bring in pension-plan legal work?

A: No. The committee concluded the solicitation activities of certain insurance agents on the lawyer's behalf were improper under Canon 27 and had to be terminated.

Q: Did organizing the plan through a corporation and serving as trustee change the result?

A: The committee examined the arrangement (the attorney originated the company and acted as trustee) but still found the third-party solicitation on his behalf improper under Canon 27.

Q: Was this treated as unauthorized practice of law?

A: No. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee found no illegal practice of law; the problem the Ethics Committee identified was the solicitation, not the practice itself.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics (solicitation), noting Canon 2 of the Code reached the same result. The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.3 / Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients) and SCR 20:7.2 / Model Rule 7.2 (lawyer communications, including the restriction on giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.3 / SCR 20:7.3 (solicitation of clients); former Canon 27
• Model Rule 7.2 / SCR 20:7.2 (communications; payment for recommendations)

See also

• WI Ethics Op. I-3-67: Partnership With a Non-Lawyer
• WI Ethics Op. E-79-4: Bank Referral of Estate Planning Customers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/I-4-67.pdf