Opinion 1508

You submitted an inquiry regarding a prepaid legal services plan which would enter an agreement with employers and attorneys for the provision of prepaid legal services.

It appears the prepaid legal services company is a separate entity from the law practice of the panel of lawyers. The Committee directed the following response be provided to you. The Committee determined the prepaid legal services company is not practicing law but rather it is essentially a legal fee insurance plan. Accordingly, promotional activities would not be subject to RPC 7.2. The Committee was further of the opinion that if representatives of the prepaid legal services company contracted employers to offer the plan, there would not be a violation of RPC 7.3(a). The Company's use of a trade name does not violate RPC 7.5(a).

The Committee saw no ethical violation in attorneys names appearing on a list of a panel of attorneys, which could be given to members of the plan. Advertising is not unethical, so long as it complies with RPC 7.1 or 7.2.

The Committee did not believe RPC 7.2(c) was applicable to the plan. An organization or person, other than the lawyer, may advertise to recommend the lawyer's services. The lawyer who became a panel member provided services and accepted fees would not apparently be in violation of RPC 7.1 - 7.5. Prepaid legal service plans are not intended to be prohibited by RPC 7.1 - 7.5.

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.