Can a Washington lawyer join a networking or business referral group that requires members to refer business to each other to keep their membership?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses a lawyer's membership in a networking and business referral association whose terms include mandatory referral requirements and the potential loss of membership if no referrals take place. The committee concluded that those terms constitute a reciprocal obligation between the lawyer and the non-lawyer members who refer potential clients to the lawyer, and that this reciprocal obligation violates RPC 7.2 because it constitutes giving "something of value" in return for recommendation of the lawyer's services.

The committee also addressed the lawyer's lack of control over how other members of the affinity group describe the lawyer's services in order to generate referrals. It said such a system raises the potential for violations of RPC 7.1 and 7.3 attributed to the lawyer. The committee said its review of the association's membership policies and its statements of goals and purposes from the association's homepage indicated that membership is likely to result in violations of all three rules: RPC 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Washington's lawyer-advertising and solicitation rules (RPC 7.1 through 7.3) were later amended. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

In practice

Under the Washington rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee treated mandatory-referral membership in a business networking group as giving "something of value" for a recommendation under RPC 7.2, because the membership created a reciprocal obligation to refer. It also treated the lawyer's lack of control over how other members described the lawyer's services as exposure under RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.3 (solicitation). The committee concluded that membership in the specific association it reviewed was likely to violate all three rules.

Common questions

Q: Does joining a business networking group that requires members to send each other referrals violate Washington's ethics rules?

A: The committee concluded that the association's terms (mandatory referrals and potential loss of membership if no referrals occur) create a reciprocal obligation that gives "something of value" in return for recommending the lawyer's services, in violation of RPC 7.2.

Q: Why does the committee say membership also raises RPC 7.1 and 7.3 problems?

A: The committee said the lawyer has no control over how other members of the affinity group describe the lawyer's services to generate referrals, which raises the potential for violations of RPC 7.1 and 7.3 attributed to the lawyer.

Q: Did the committee evaluate the specific association?

A: Yes. The committee said its review of the association's membership policies and its stated goals and purposes from the association's homepage indicated that membership is likely to result in violations of all three rules: RPC 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 7.2 (corresponding to Model Rule 7.2), which barred a lawyer from giving anything of value for recommending the lawyer's services, together with RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; Model Rule 7.1) and RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients; Model Rule 7.3). The opinion reflects Washington's pre-2006 rule numbering.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• Model Rule 7.2 / Washington RPC 7.2 (something of value for recommending services)
• Model Rule 7.3 / Washington RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1071: Paid Personal Referral Service Prohibited
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1297: Lawyer in a Paid Referral Package
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1150: Group Advertising Referral Program
• Alabama Ethics Op. 1997-01: Participation in a National Attorney Network

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1227

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1975
Year Issued: 2002
RPC(s): RPC 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
Subject: lawyer referral, networking and business referral association

The Rules of Professional Conduct Committee believes that the terms of the networking and business referral association memberships, including its mandatory requirements of referrals and potential loss of membership if no referrals take place, constitute a reciprocal obligation between the lawyer and the non-lawyer members referring potential clients to the attorney and violate RPC 7.2 because they constitute giving “something of value” in return for recommendation of the lawyer`s services.

The Committee also wishes to warn about the lack of control over how other members of the affinity group describe the lawyer’s services to generate referrals to the lawyer. Such a system raises the potential for violations of RPC 7.1 and 7.3 attributed to the attorney. A review of the networking and business referral associations membership policies and its statements of goals and purposes from the associations homepage indicate that membership is likely to result in violations of all three RPCs: 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3.