Can a Washington lawyer join a private lawyer referral service whose non-lawyer staff screen calls and refer callers to lawyers?

Plain-English summary

The committee revisited an inquiry it had answered earlier about a Washington lawyer participating in a lawyer referral service. In its first response, the committee had said that the person screening calls and referring lawyers' names to consumers would have to be a lawyer. On reconsideration, the committee changed that position: it determined that screening such calls and referring the names of lawyers does not constitute the practice of law, so the rules do not require a lawyer to perform that function in order to keep a participating Washington lawyer from aiding the unauthorized practice of law.

The committee also addressed the underlying advertising program. After reviewing additional information, it concluded that the proposed advertising program would not violate any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee added two caveats: it was not endorsing the program or approving any specific advertisements, and it could not make any decision that would bind the Disciplinary Board if the matter ever came before it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyer-advertising and referral rules have changed since, both by rule amendment and by later court decisions on commercial speech. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does a non-lawyer screening calls for a referral service count as the practice of law?

A: The committee concluded it does not. On reconsideration it determined that screening calls and referring lawyers' names is not the practice of law.

Q: Does a Washington lawyer aid the unauthorized practice of law by joining such a service?

A: The committee concluded the rules do not require a lawyer to perform the screening function to prevent a participating Washington lawyer from aiding the unauthorized practice of law, because the screening is not the practice of law.

Q: Did the committee bless the referral service's advertising?

A: It said the proposed advertising program would not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, but it stressed it was not endorsing the program or approving specific ads, and that nothing it said would bind the Disciplinary Board.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addresses participation in a private lawyer referral service and the related advertising program. It turns on whether the screening and referral function, performed by non-lawyers, is the practice of law; the committee concluded it is not, which removed the unauthorized-practice concern its earlier response had raised. The committee resolved the advertising question generally, finding no violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, without citing a specific rule by number and without endorsing the program.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion does not cite a rule by number. It concludes that screening and referring callers is not the practice of law, and that the proposed advertising program would not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 920: paying a referral association under RPC 7.2
• WSBA Ethics Op. 925: advertising service forwarding messages to a law firm
• NYC Bar Formal Op. 2017-1: payment of fees to a legal referral service
• NYC Bar Formal Op. 1994-3: legal referral services

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=46

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 935
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC
Subject: Participation in lawyer referral service

(1987) The Rules of Professional Conduct Committee recently had occasion to review a similar inquiry as yours which was previously considered by the Committee. At the time of responding to your inquiry, the Committee indicated that for a Washington lawyer to participate in a lawyer referral service such as that offered by ** the lawyer would have to ensure that the person screening the calls and referring the names of lawyers to the consumer would have to be a lawyer. Upon reconsideration, the Committee has determined that the screening of such calls and the referral of the names of lawyers would not constitute the practice of law, and therefore the rules would not require that a lawyer perform that function in order to prevent any participating Washington lawyer from aiding the unauthorized practice of law. Because of this change in the Committee's opinion, the Committee directed that I advise you.

(1986) After reviewing the additional information provided by *, the Committee was of the opinion that the proposed advertising program would not violate any of the provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee wished me to make it clear that the Committee is not in any way endorsing this advertising program nor approving any specific advertisements which may be used by ****. Neither can the Committee make any decision which is in any way a disciplinary decision which will be binding upon the Disciplinary Board should this matter ever become before them in the future.