Advisory Opinion: 2043

Year Issued: 2003

RPC(s): RPC 7.1, 7.2(c), 7.3, 7.4, 8.4(a)

Subject: Organization seeking lawyer support

The inquirer is a board member of an organization that focuses on providing support for a particular class of injured individuals. The organization seeks lawyer participation in the organization, including financial support. In exchange for providing financial support, a lawyer would be allowed to use the organization’s seal/logo on the lawyer’s letterhead and advertisements and the organization would “acknowledge” the lawyer in the organization’s newsletter, annual seminars, conventions, etc.; provided that the lawyer meets the organization’s criteria for “demonstrated competence” in a subject area.

The Committee does not believe that the 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 the organization’s members by its staff, there is a substantial risk that communications concerning the lawyer’s services may violate the restrictions of RPC 7.1, which prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer’s services. Such communication would occur when a member contacts the organization to inquire about how to contact a lawyer that meets the organization’s “demonstrated competence”.

In addition, RPC 7.2(c) bars referrals in return for anything of value provided by the lawyer. A de facto referral service is created by virtue the organization’s acknowledgment of the contributing lawyer in newsletters, annual seminars, conventions, etc. because such acknowledgement would be given only to those lawyers that meet the organization’s criteria regarding “demonstrated competence”. The organization, while being a non-profit organization, is not 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 a lawyer and the organization. The organization apparently would have in-person and direct communication with members and their families regarding lawyers that meet the organization’s criteria for establishing “demonstrated competence” in a particular subject area (i.e. see third paragraph above). Such direct contact would be barred by 8.4(a) if engaged in by the lawyer under RPC 7.3(a) and therefore would be barred RPC 8.4(a) if done by the organization on behalf of the lawyer.

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 regarding the criteria the organization intends to use to define “demonstrated competence” in a particular subject area, even without directly using such terms. The organization is not an evaluation or testing organization as contemplated by RPC 7.4(b), and the risks of the proposed relationship violating RPC 7.4 is substantial.

Advisory Opinions are provided for the education of the Bar and reflect the opinion of the Committee on Professional Ethics (CPE) or its predecessors. Advisory Opinions are provided pursuant to the authorization granted by the Board of Governors, but are not individually approved by the Board and do not reflect the official position of the Bar association. Laws other than the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct may apply to the inquiry. The Committee's answer does not include or opine about any other applicable law other than the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct.