Opinion 2038

The inquirer is a board member of a nonprofit organization. The organization is dedicated “to the prevention, support, education and advocacy on [a certain class of injury] matters.” The organization seeks to pass a resolution to encourage attorneys to participate in the organization. The organization seeks to offer its members free legal consultation from “competent and qualified” attorneys by referring its members to law firms who make a contribution it.

In consideration for “financial sponsorship” by an attorney, the organization would:

• Place the attorney/law firm on the organization’s Attorney Resource List;
• Refer the attorney/law firm to prospective clients on a rotating basis from the Attorney Resource List;
• Allow the attorney/law firm to use the organization’s seal on the attorney’s letterhead and advertisements; and
• Acknowledge the attorney in organization’s newsletters, annual seminars, conventions, etc.

In short, in exchange for an attorney’s financial participation in the organization, the attorney would obtain referrals and other forms of advertisement from it.

Based on the proposed resolution provided (note that only one page of the resolution was provided), it does not appear that the lawyers will have any direct control over the communications made by the organization’s staff to its members.

The committee notes that the materials submitted appear incomplete. Notwithstanding, the committee is prepared to issue an informal opinion based on the materials as provided.

The attorney requests whether a non-lawyer organization may offer its members free legal consultation from competent and qualified attorneys by referring its members to law firms who make financial contributions to the organization.

The Committee does not believe that the referral relationship proposed by the organization is proper because there are potential violations of RPC 7.1, 7.2(c), 7.3, 7.4, and 8.4(a).

Because the lawyers will not have any direct control over the communications made to organization’s members by its staff, there is a substantial risk that communications concerning the lawyers’ services may violate the restrictions of RPC 7.1, which prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer’s services.

In addition, RPC 7.2(c) bars referrals in return for anything of value provided by the attorney. It would be improper for a Washington lawyer to pay the annual contributions to the organization – which contributions are controlled by organization – in light of the proposed referrals. The organization arguably, is not not-for-profit service, and certainly would not qualify as a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization as identified in RPC 7.2(c).

Furthermore, RPC 7.3 when read with RPC 8.4(a) may prohibit the relationship contemplated between Washington lawyers and the organization. The organization apparently intends to have in-person and direct communication with members and their families in part for the purposes of referring their members and families to lawyers who have paid annual contributions. Such direct contact would be barred by 8.4(a) if engaged in by the attorney under RPC 7.3(a) and therefore would be barred by RPC 8.4(a) if done by the organization on behalf of the attorney.

Lastly, RPC 7.4’s prohibition on the identification of a lawyer or law firm as an “expert” or a “specialist” may be violated by statements made by the organization to its members and the general public. The organization is not an evaluation or testing organization as contemplated by RPC 7.4(b), and the risks of organization’s referrals violating RPC 7.4 is substantial.