Can a Washington lawyer advertise in a free community 'address book' mailed to households?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned participation in a new program by advertising in a complementary "address book." The committee concluded the proposed marketing program does not violate RPC 7.2 or 7.3 as long as three requirements are met.

First, the advertisement must not be false or misleading or otherwise in violation of RPC 7.1. Second, the lawyer must comply with RPC 7.2(b) and (d). Third, none of the recipients of the address book may have made known a desire not to receive the address book or an included advertisement from the lawyer; at a minimum, no address book may be sent to any family that has made known such a desire, citing RPC 7.3(b).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's lawyer-advertising and solicitation rules (RPC 7.1 through 7.3) have been amended since 1998, so verify the current rule text and numbering before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a Washington lawyer advertise in a free "address book" distributed to households?

A: The committee concluded the program does not violate RPC 7.2 or 7.3 as long as the advertisement is not misleading, the lawyer complies with RPC 7.2(b) and (d), and opt-out households are excluded.

Q: What makes such an advertisement improper?

A: Under RPC 7.1, the advertisement may not be false or misleading; the committee made compliance with RPC 7.1 a condition of the program.

Q: Does the lawyer have to honor a household's request not to receive the address book?

A: Yes. The committee conditioned its conclusion on no address book being sent to any family that has made known a desire not to receive it, citing RPC 7.3(b).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), RPC 7.2 (advertising), and RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. The committee allowed the address-book advertising program subject to the no-misleading-content requirement of RPC 7.1, compliance with RPC 7.2(b) and (d), and the opt-out limitation of RPC 7.3(b).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Washington RPC 7.1
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising); Washington RPC 7.2(b), (d)
• ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients); Washington RPC 7.3(b)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1825: Advertising by Posting Fliers
• WA Ethics Op. 1824: CFE Designation in Ads
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1155: Direct-Mail to a Trade Group List

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1034

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1841
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.2; 7.3
Subject: Advertising; marketing program with advertisement in complementary "address book"

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1841 concerning participating in a new program by advertising in a complementary "address book".

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

The Committee is of the opinion that the proposed marketing program does not violate RPC 7.2 or 7.3 as long as the following requirements are met:

1. The advertisement is not false or misleading or otherwise in violation of RPC 7.1. 2. You comply with RPC 7.2(b) and (d). 3. None of the recipients of the "address book" has made known a desire not to receive the address book and/or an included advertisement from the lawyer, or at least no address book is sent to any family that has made known such a desire. See RPC 7.3(b).