Can a lawyer use direct-mail advertising and offer free seminars to a retirement community to attract clients?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee was asked about direct-mail advertising and about offering a free seminar to members of a retirement community as a way to attract clients. On the mailings, the committee concluded that direct-mail advertising is not prohibited, provided that it is not misleading or deceptive.
On the seminar, the committee split by a vote of 6 to 4 on whether the proposed free seminar might be misleading or deceptive. The majority concluded the lawyer could make the offer, provided that future contact with the seminar participants complied with the requirements of DR 2-104. The minority concluded that the offer was in fact designed to obtain business from the participants and therefore would violate DR 2-104.
Currency note
This opinion was issued under Washington's former Code of Professional Responsibility, which the Rules of Professional Conduct later replaced. It was issued in 1985, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments, later opinions, and court decisions on commercial speech 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was direct-mail advertising allowed under this opinion?
A: Yes. The committee concluded that direct-mail advertising is not prohibited, provided that it is not misleading or deceptive.
Q: Could a lawyer offer a free seminar to a retirement community to find clients?
A: The committee divided 6 to 4. The majority concluded the lawyer could make the offer, provided future contact with the seminar participants complied with DR 2-104; the minority concluded the offer was designed to obtain business and would violate DR 2-104.
Q: What was the dividing line in the committee's vote?
A: Whether the free-seminar offer was misleading or deceptive, and whether the lawyer's later contact with participants would meet DR 2-104. The majority focused on compliant follow-up contact; the minority viewed the offer itself as a means of obtaining business.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies DR 2-104 of the Washington Code of Professional Responsibility then in force, which governed a lawyer's contact with prospective clients to whom unsolicited advice had been given. Both the majority and minority framed the seminar question around compliance with DR 2-104. The advertising and solicitation duties at issue are now addressed by Washington RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.3 and by Model Rules 7.1 and 7.3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- DR 2-104 (former Washington Code of Professional Responsibility): contact with prospective clients following unsolicited advice (advertising and solicitation duties now addressed by RPC 7.1 / RPC 7.3 / Model Rules 7.1 and 7.3).
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 840: telephone solicitation and mass-mailed brochures
- Alabama Ethics Op. 1996-05: direct-mail advertising
- ABA Formal Op. 501: responsibility for solicitation by others
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=7
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 847
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s): DR 2-104
Subject: Direct mail advertising; providing free seminars to solicit clients
The Committee is of the opinion that direct mail advertising is not prohibited provided that it is not misleading or deceptive. The Committee was split, however, by a vote of 6 to 4, on whether your proposed offer to provide a free seminar to members of the retirement community might be misleading or deceptive. The majority was of the opinion that you could make such an offer, provided that your future contact with the seminar participants complied with the requirements of DR 2-104. The minority was of the opinion that the offer was in fact designed to obtain business from the seminar participants and therefore would violate DR 2-104.
[Editor's Note: The Code of Professional Responsibility was superseded by the Rules of Professional Conduct after this opinion was issued.]
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1985 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.