Can a separate prepaid legal services company promote its plan to employers and list panel attorneys without violating the lawyer advertising rules?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about a prepaid legal services plan that would enter agreements with employers and attorneys to provide prepaid legal services. The plan company appeared to be a separate entity from the law practices of the panel lawyers. The committee determined that the prepaid legal services company is not practicing law, but is essentially a legal-fee insurance plan. Accordingly, its promotional activities would not be subject to RPC 7.2.

The committee was further of the opinion that if the company's representatives contacted employers to offer the plan, there would be no violation of RPC 7.3(a), and that the company's use of a trade name does not violate RPC 7.5(a). It saw no ethical violation in attorneys' names appearing on a panel list that could be given to plan members, and said advertising is not unethical so long as it complies with RPC 7.1 or 7.2.

The committee did not believe RPC 7.2(c) applied to the plan: an organization or person other than the lawyer may advertise to recommend the lawyer's services. A lawyer who became a panel member, provided services, and accepted fees would not apparently be in violation of RPC 7.1 through 7.5. The committee concluded prepaid legal service plans are not intended to be prohibited by RPC 7.1 through 7.5.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is a separate prepaid legal services company practicing law?

A: The committee determined it is not; it is essentially a legal-fee insurance plan, so its promotional activities are not subject to RPC 7.2.

Q: Can the plan's representatives contact employers to offer it?

A: The committee was of the opinion that doing so would not violate RPC 7.3(a).

Q: Can attorneys' names appear on a panel list given to plan members?

A: The committee saw no ethical violation in that, and said advertising is not unethical so long as it complies with RPC 7.1 or 7.2.

Q: Are panel lawyers who take plan referrals in violation?

A: The committee said a lawyer who became a panel member, provided services, and accepted fees would not apparently be in violation of RPC 7.1 through 7.5.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the advertising and solicitation rules, RPC 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 (corresponding to the same-numbered ABA Model Rules), to a prepaid legal services plan. The committee's central move was to classify the plan company as a legal-fee insurer rather than a law practice, which took its promotion outside RPC 7.2 and left the panel arrangement permissible so long as the lawyers' own advertising complied with RPC 7.1 or 7.2.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications); Washington RPC 7.1
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising; recommendations); Washington RPC 7.2, 7.2(c)
• ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients); Washington RPC 7.3(a)
• ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and trade names); Washington RPC 7.5(a)
• Washington RPC 7.4 (fields of practice), referenced as part of RPC 7.1 through 7.5

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1511: Fee Split With a Lawyer Referral Service
• WA Ethics Op. 1484: Referrals From a Funded Nonprofit

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=589

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1508
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.2; 7.3; 7.4; 7.5
Subject: Prepaid legal services plan; advertising

You submitted an inquiry regarding a prepaid legal services plan which would enter an agreement with employers and attorneys for the provision of prepaid legal services.

It appears the prepaid legal services company is a separate entity from the law practice of the panel of lawyers. The Committee directed the following response be provided to you. The Committee determined the prepaid legal services company is not practicing law but rather it is essentially a legal fee insurance plan. Accordingly, promotional activities would not be subject to RPC 7.2. The Committee was further of the opinion that if representatives of the prepaid legal services company contracted employers to offer the plan, there would not be a violation of RPC 7.3(a). The Company's use of a trade name does not violate RPC 7.5(a).

The Committee saw no ethical violation in attorneys names appearing on a list of a panel of attorneys, which could be given to members of the plan. Advertising is not unethical, so long as it complies with RPC 7.1 or 7.2.

The Committee did not believe RPC 7.2(c) was applicable to the plan. An organization or person, other than the lawyer, may advertise to recommend the lawyer's services. The lawyer who became a panel member provided services and accepted fees would not apparently be in violation of RPC 7.1 - 7.5. Prepaid legal service plans are not intended to be prohibited by RPC 7.1 - 7.5.