Can a lawyer team up with a nonlawyer-owned company to give legal advice to callers of a 1-900 pay-per-call number?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about the ethical propriety of working with a company owned by non-attorneys to provide legal advice to clients calling a "1-900" pay-per-call number. The committee was of the opinion that the situation violates both RPC 5.4(a) and (b) and 7.2(c). It added that because the advice given is prerecorded, concerns about the competency of the advice raise serious malpractice questions under RPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.

In a follow-up, the lawyer asked how the operation differed from programs run by organizations such as American Express. The committee determined that the American Express type of program is a prepaid legal service plan, while the venture the lawyer described is a solicitation program, and it stood by its previous opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer give advice through a 1-900 number owned by nonlawyers?

A: The committee said the arrangement violates RPC 5.4(a) and (b), which protect a lawyer's professional independence and bar nonlawyer ownership or control, and RPC 7.2(c).

Q: Why does prerecorded advice raise extra concern?

A: The committee said that because the advice is prerecorded, the competency of the advice raises serious malpractice questions under RPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4.

Q: How is this different from an American Express-style legal plan?

A: The committee said the American Express type of program is a prepaid legal service plan, while the 900-number venture is a solicitation program, and it stood by its opinion that the latter violates the rules.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 5.4(a) and (b) (ABA Model Rule 5.4), which protect a lawyer's professional independence and restrict nonlawyer ownership or control of a law practice, and RPC 7.2(c) (ABA Model Rule 7.2) on paying for recommendations of a lawyer's services. It also invoked the competence and diligence duties of RPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 (ABA Model Rules 1.1 through 1.4) because the advice was prerecorded. The committee distinguished a prepaid legal service plan from the solicitation program it found impermissible.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence); Washington RPC 1.1
• ABA Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation); Washington RPC 1.2
• ABA Model Rule 1.3 (diligence); Washington RPC 1.3
• ABA Model Rule 1.4 (communication); Washington RPC 1.4
• ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer); Washington RPC 5.4(a), 5.4(b)
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising; paying for recommendations); Washington RPC 7.2(c)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1238: Lawyer's Recorded Message on a Company Phone Line
• WA Ethics Op. 1211: Fee Splitting With a Service Center

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=672

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1589
Year Issued: 1994
RPC(s): RPC 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 1.4; 5.4; 7.2(c)
Subject: Lawyer providing legal advice to callers of 900 number owned by nonlawyers

[November 15, 1994] The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding the ethical propriety of an attorney working with a company owned by non-attorneys to provide legal advice to clients calling a "1-900" number. The Committee was of the opinion that this situation violates both RPC 5.4(a) and (b) and 7.2(c). Also, because the advice given is prerecorded, concerns regarding the competency of the advice raises serious malpractice questions under RPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.

[March 30, 1995] The Committee reviewed your follow-up inquiry to its previous opinion that the 900 telephone number venture which you inquired about before would violate certain aspects of the Rules of Professional Conduct. You have inquired as to how that operation differed from others operated by such organizations as American Express. Upon review, the Committee determined that the type of program offered by American Express is a prepaid legal service plan while that which was the subject of your inquiry is a solicitation program. The Committee concluded to stand by its previous opinion.