Can a lawyer refer injury clients to a chiropractor who waives report and testimony fees in return?

Plain-English summary

A chiropractor solicited referrals from an attorney, offering in exchange to provide free reports and testimony needed to resolve injury claims with the tortfeasor's insurer. The attorney's typical contingent fee deducts costs before calculating the percentage, and the attorney reported there was no obligation to send referrals, no agreement that the chiropractor would send patients back, and no understanding that the chiropractor's bill would get a payment preference; the chiropractor would still charge defense counsel for testimony time. The attorney asked whether agreeing to refer clients to the chiropractor in exchange for the waived fees was ethical.

The committee said this limited quid pro quo is not, per se, unethical, noting the reciprocal understanding was not exclusive. It stressed that the attorney has a mandatory duty under RPC 1.4(b) to explain the arrangement to the extent reasonably necessary for the client to make informed decisions, which at a minimum would include the cost savings and the possible adverse effect on the client's case should the terms become known to an adverse party or factfinder.

In discussion, the committee said the agreement in its simplest terms does not violate the RPCs, but cautioned against additional features. If the arrangement included an agreement to give reciprocal referrals, it would violate RPC 7.2(c), because the attorney's referrals to the chiropractor would be "value" given in trade for the chiropractor's referrals. If the attorney had responsibilities to the chiropractor, RPC 1.7(b) would require avoiding any conflict, making proper disclosures, and obtaining any available waivers; RPC 2.1 would prohibit referrals that impaired the attorney's independent professional judgment; and RPC 1.1 requires competence in selecting expert witnesses. The committee expressed no opinion about the practice of referring personal injury clients to chiropractors.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

In practice

Under the Washington rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee treated a one-way, non-exclusive fee-waiver arrangement as permissible, gated on RPC 1.4(b) disclosure to the client about the savings and the litigation risk if the deal surfaced. It then flagged the lines that would convert it into a violation: a reciprocal-referral agreement (RPC 7.2(c)), responsibilities to the chiropractor that create a conflict (RPC 1.7(b)), an arrangement that impairs independent judgment (RPC 2.1), or failing to choose the expert competently (RPC 1.1). The committee took no position on the underlying practice of referring injury clients to chiropractors.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer refer clients to a provider who waives fees in return?

A: The committee said a limited, non-exclusive arrangement of that kind is not per se unethical, but the lawyer must disclose it to the client under RPC 1.4(b).

Q: What must the lawyer tell the client?

A: The committee said, at a minimum, the cost savings and the possible adverse effect on the client's case if the terms become known to an adverse party or factfinder.

Q: When would the arrangement cross the line?

A: The committee said an agreement to give reciprocal referrals would violate RPC 7.2(c), and responsibilities to the provider could trigger RPC 1.7(b) conflicts or impair independence under RPC 2.1.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets RPC 7.2(c) (Model Rule 7.2, no giving something of value for a referral), RPC 1.4(b) (Model Rule 1.4, communication and informed decisions), RPC 1.7(b) (Model Rule 1.7, conflicts of interest), RPC 2.1 (Model Rule 2.1, independent professional judgment), and RPC 1.1 (Model Rule 1.1, competence). The committee analyzed the chiropractor arrangement as permissible only because it was one-way and non-exclusive, with the duty of disclosure carrying the analysis. The line turns on whether referrals are traded for referrals and whether the lawyer's independence is compromised.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.2 / Washington RPC 7.2(c) (giving something of value for a referral)
• Model Rule 1.4 / Washington RPC 1.4(b) (communication; informed decisions)
• Model Rule 1.7 / Washington RPC 1.7(b) (conflicts of interest)
• Model Rule 2.1 / Washington RPC 2.1 (independent professional judgment)
• Model Rule 1.1 / Washington RPC 1.1 (competence; selecting expert witnesses)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 2085: Referrals From a Direct Lender
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1071: Paid Lawyer Referral Service
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1944: Referral to a Lawyer With a Common Business Interest

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1334

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 2093
Year Issued: 2005
RPC(s): RPC 1.1, 1.4(b), 1.7(b), 2.1, 7.2(c)
Subject: Lawyer`s referrals to a particular chiropractor

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether an attorney can ethically agree to refer clients to a chiropractor, in exchange for which the chiropractor will waive fees chargeable to the attorney or client for reports and time spent in testifying.

RESPONSE

This limited quid pro quo agreement is not, per se, unethical. The reciprocal understanding is not exclusive. The attorney has a mandatory duty, under RPC 1.4(b), to explain the arrangement “to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions . . . .” At a minimum, this would include the cost savings and the possible adverse effect on the client’s case should the terms become known to an adverse party or factfinder.

FACTS

A chiropractor has solicited referrals from an attorney, in exchange for which the physician would give free reports and testimony necessary to resolve the claim with the tortfeasor’s insurer. The attorney’s typical contingent fee agreement deducts costs before calculating the percentage fee. The attorney reported there is no obligation on the attorney to send referrals to the chiropractor, nor is there any agreement that the chiropractor would send patients to the attorney; there is no understanding the attorney would prioritize the chiropractor’s bill or otherwise give the physician a preference for payment greater than required by law. The attorney did note that the chiropractor will charge defense counsel for time spent in giving testimony.

DISCUSSION

In its simplest terms, the agreement does not violate the RPCs. However, the attorney must use caution that the arrangement does not involve additional features that would violate the RPCs. In particular, the committee notes that if the arrangement were to include an agreement to give reciprocal referrals, it would violate RPC 7.2(c). The attorney’s referrals to the chiropractor would comprise “value” given in trade for the chiropractor’s referrals to the attorney.

In addition, if the attorney has any responsibilities to the chiropractor under the arrangement, the attorney would need to take RPC 1.7(b) into account and avoid any conflict of interest, make proper disclosures to the client, and obtain waivers of potential conflicts that are eligible for waiver. RPC 2.1, which requires that the attorney exercise independent professional judgment in representing the client, would prohibit referrals if the arrangement impaired the attorney’s independence. In all events, RPC 1.1 requires the attorney to exercise competence in selecting expert witnesses.

The committee expresses no opinion about the practice of referring personal injury clients to chiropractors.