| LEO Num | Topics | Summary | Date |
1029
 Print
|
| [WITHDRAWN 4/18] A lawyer referral service may not call itself "The Litigation Group" without explaining that it is not a law firm, and may not use the statement "no recovery -- no fee" because clients will be liable for costs even if they lose [explained in LEO 1750]. | 2/1/1988 |
0926
Print
|
| [WITHDRAWN 9/16] A lawyer referral service: may limit referrals to a certain number of lawyers in each locality, as long as there is no public deception; may be a profit-making organization; may not improperly indicate lawyers' specialties; may not be organized by a lawyer so that telephone calls to the referral service go directly to the lawyer's office. | 6/11/1987 |
1689
Print
|
| [WITHDRAWN 9/16] A lawyer referral service: may list practice areas; must have enough lawyers in each geographic area to avoid deceiving the public (the Bar had earlier suggested that each area should have at least five lawyers); may require that participating lawyers agree not to join other referral services (because such an agreement does not limit the right to practice law and does not extend beyond the termination of the relationship with the referral service). | 12/9/1996 |
1543
Print
|
| [WITHDRAWN 9/16] It is improper for a lawyer to join a for-profit lawyer referral service that exclusively refers individuals in four Virginia counties to the lawyer for traffic matters. | 8/12/1993 |
1348
Print
|
| [WITHDRAWN 9/16] This LEO discusses lawyer referral services. | 6/24/1990 |
1750
Print
|
| A compendium opinion on lawyer marketing reflects the 7/1/17 ethics rules changes. First, lawyers must disclose that their advertising includes actors rather than lawyers "when the language used implies otherwise" (as when actors "use first person references to themselves as lawyers"). Second, lawyers may use a phrase such as "no recovery, no fee" only when they have already decided that the "client's responsibility for advanced costs and expenses will be contingent on the outcome of the matter." Third, law firms may not include the name of a lawyer "not associated with the firm or a predecessor of the firm," and must "actually practice" under their advertised name. It is "potentially misleading" for lawyers to advertise "the use of a non-exclusive office space" if lawyers do not provide legal services there. Fourth, lawyers may not advertise that would-be clients "will have to consult an attorney" before speaking with an insurance company representative. Fifth, lawyers may advertise their participation in lawyer referral services, as long as the service is: "operated in the public interest; is open to all area lawyers who meet the services requirements; requires service members to pay malpractice insurance or otherwise ensure financial responsibility; has adopted procedures for admitting and removing lawyers; prohibits any fee-generated referral to any lawyers who have an ownership interest in the service. Among other things, such referral service membership advertising may not: falsely imply that membership is based on some objective "quality of services" assessment; state or imply that the services contain all eligible lawyers; falsely state or imply that a "substantial number" of lawyers participate in the service. Sixth, although advertising specific or cumulative case results no longer must be preceded by a specific disclaimer, such advertisements "can be misleading." For instance, it would be misleading to advertise a $1,000,000 verdict if the lawyer's client had turned down a $2,000,000 settlement offer before trial. Seventh, lawyers may not use such "extravagant or self-laudatory" advertisements such as "the best lawyers," "the most experienced," etc. Eighth, lawyers may not advertise or use client testimonials that cannot be "factually substantiated" – the same standard as the lawyers' own advertisements. Lawyers may use "soft endorsements" that describe lawyers' return of clients' phone calls, appearance of concern, etc. Ninth, lawyers may list their inclusion in publications such as The Best Lawyers In America, but if they are delisted they must accurately state the "year(s) or edition(s) in which the lawyer was listed." Tenth, lawyers may advertise as a "specialist" or "specializing in" certain areas, as long as they can establish its accuracy. Eleventh, lawyers may advertise using terms such as "expert" or "expertise" if they can factually substantiate the description. | 10/2/2019 |
0407
Print
|
| A lawyer may participate in a local bar association's lawyer referral service, since any forwarding fee paid to the referral service is not impermissible fee-splitting. | 7/21/1981 |
0479
Print
|
| A lawyer may participate in a referral system for paying work established by a legal aid office. | 7/21/1982 |
0467
Print
|
| A lawyer may serve on a referral panel arranged by a local legal aid office. | 9/20/1982 |
1175
Print
|
| A lawyer referral service advertisement must clearly indicate whether it is for a law firm or a lawyer referral service. | 1/31/1989 |
0738
Print
|
| A lawyer referral service should assure the competence of its members, should publish a criteria for membership and may charge a membership fee. | 11/18/1985 |
1068
Print
|
| A lawyer representing himself or herself may not settle a case in return for the defendant's promise to refer clients to the lawyer, because the lawyer would be giving something of value in exchange for a recommendation. | 4/11/1988 |
1751
Print
|
| A non-profit lawyer referral service operated by a local bar association may require that participating lawyers pay the service a percentage of fees that they collect from individuals referred to the lawyer by the service, as long as the percentage is reasonable. | 5/7/2001 |
0910
Print
|
| An out-of-state corporation may obtain clients for a Virginia lawyer as long as it complies with the lawyer referral rules, but any public statements that violate the ethics code would amount to a violation by a participating lawyer. | 5/4/1987 |
1846
Print
|
| Lawyers may not join a lead-sharing organization in which membership "is often dependent on the number of leads a member passes," because: such "reciprocal" referrals amounts to a "quid pro quo payment for services" in violation of the prohibition on providing something of value in return for a referral (and possibly in violation of § 54.1-3939's and § 54.1-3941's ban on "running and capping," as explained in a 12/7/10 letter from Virginia's Attorney General); such participation puts the client's interest at risk because the lawyer "may be obligated to refer a client to a particular member specialist when a non-member specialist may be better suited to meet the client's needs"; the lawyer faces a personal conflict of interest because the lawyer may not feel free "to choose the most appropriate specialty provider for a client"; "[t]he mere disclosure of a client's name and specific need in certain circumstances may be enough to violate the Rule without consent of the client." A lawyer may own an interest in a company that is such a lead-sharing organization "as long as the lawyer is not a member." Lawyers may also engage in voluntary referrals to other lawyers and professionals, but may not join "a hypothetical organization which bases membership on the commitment to provide referrals." (2/2/09; revised 12/29/10) | 12/29/2010 |
Virginia-1885
Print
|
| Lawyers violate some ethics rules but not other ethics rules if they participate in a for-profit attorney-client matching service ("ACMS") under which the ACMS: advertises "without the lawyers input" fees for limited scope services to be provided by the lawyer; collects the fee, deposit it in the lawyers' operating account after the lawyer completes the work; withdraws a "marketing fee" which is set by the ACMS and based on the legal fee. Such an arrangement: (1) would violate the ethics rules governing limited scope representations, unless the lawyer and the client agree on the limitation rather than simply allowing the ACMS to define the scope in advance; (2) might involve an unreasonable fixed fee, unless the lawyer conducts "an independent assessment" of the advertised fee's relationship to the work; (3) would violate lawyers' ability to safeguard the unearned fixed fee; because the fee initially goes to the ACMS (a lay entity) and not to a trust account, and therefore could be vulnerable to the ACMS's creditors, cannot be refunded if that would be required, etc.; (4) would violate the fee-split rule because there is a "direct linkage" between the lawyer's fee and the ACMS's entitlement to compensation (in contrast to advertising fees which are not based on the legal fee amount); would violate the prohibition on lawyers giving lawyers or nonlawyers "anything of value" to recommend the lawyer (because the ACMS's marketing fee is not a legitimate advertising expense, but instead is "a sum tethered directly to her receipt, and the amount, of a legal fee paid by a client". | 11/8/2018 |
1014
Print
|
| Two partners in a law firm may not set up a lawyer referral service in which they would use a separate telephone within the firm without advising callers of the lawyers' connection with the firm, because it would be deceptive. | 1/7/1988 |