May a Washington lawyer join a for-profit website that lists lawyers offering fixed-fee or reduced-rate services?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a for-profit Internet entity that operated a website giving users access to lawyers willing to provide legal services for fixed fees or lower hourly rates, and the agreement that entity required participating lawyers to sign.

The committee concluded that, under RPC 5.4(a) and 7.2(a), a lawyer is not prohibited from entering into such an agreement. It reasoned that the agreement does not entail fee sharing with a nonlawyer and does not amount to indirect payment of a referral fee to a for-profit referral service.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Washington's lawyer-advertising rules (the RPC 7-series) have been revised since. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 Washington lawyer join a for-profit website that lists lawyers offering fixed-fee or lower-rate services?

A: The committee concluded that, under RPC 5.4(a) and 7.2(a), a lawyer is not prohibited from entering into the agreement such an entity required.

Q: Is joining that kind of website fee sharing with a nonlawyer?

A: The committee said the agreement does not entail fee sharing with a nonlawyer.

Q: Is paying to be listed an indirect referral fee to a for-profit referral service?

A: The committee concluded the arrangement does not amount to indirect payment of a referral fee to a for-profit referral service.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 5.4(a) (professional independence; sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer; corresponding to Model Rule 5.4) and RPC 7.2(a) (advertising, including the limits on paying others to recommend a lawyer's services; corresponding to Model Rule 7.2). The committee concluded that the participation agreement crossed neither line. The opinion reflects Washington's pre-2006 numbering of these rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 5.4 / Washington RPC 5.4(a) (professional independence; sharing fees with a nonlawyer)
• Model Rule 7.2 / Washington RPC 7.2(a) (advertising; paying others to recommend a lawyer's services)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1297: Lawyer in a Paid Referral Package
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1511: Division of Fees With a Lawyer Referral Service
• DC Bar Ethics Op. 342: Internet-Based Lawyer Referral Services
• ISBA Ethics Op. 92-23: For-Profit Lawyer Referral Service

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1187

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1947
Year Issued: 2001
RPC(s): RPC 5.4(a); 7.2(a)
Subject: Lawyer's participation with a for-profit Internet entity that provides users access to list of lawyers willing to provide services for fixed fees or lower rates.

The RPC Committee believes that, under RPC 5.4(a) and 7.2(a), a lawyer is not prohibited from entering into an agreement, such as that required by the for profit Internet entity that operates a Web site providing users of the site access to lawyers who are willing to provide legal services for fixed fees or lower hourly rates. Such an agreement does not entail fee sharing with a nonlawyer, and/or indirect payment of a referral fee to a for profit referral service.