Can a Florida lawyer write directly to insurance companies to place mortgage loans for clients?

Plain-English summary

A member's office handled a large volume of real estate transactions for clients seeking loans from life insurance companies. He had been placing those loans through mortgage brokers acting as correspondents for the lenders, and wanted to write directly to the insurance companies instead. He stated he would not solicit legal employment, and that all fees for placing the loans would be paid by his clients.

The committee unanimously concluded that writing directly to the insurance companies to obtain loans on clients' behalf would not be ethically improper, provided the letter did not directly or indirectly suggest that the lawyer or his office should be employed to represent the lending institution in placing mortgage funds. It added two cautions tied to its concern under Canon 27: the letters should go only to companies that appear likely to be interested in such matters, and should be sent only when a client is currently seeking to borrow money.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, concerning advertising and solicitation; lawyer solicitation is now governed by Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.3). Florida's advertising and solicitation rules were also substantially affected by Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), decided after this opinion. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer write directly to insurance companies to place his clients' loans?

A: Yes. The committee's unanimous view was that doing so was not improper, as long as the lawyer was acting to obtain loans for clients and was not soliciting work from the lender.

Q: What was the key limit?

A: The letter could not directly or indirectly suggest that the lawyer or his office be employed to represent the lending institution in placing mortgage funds.

Q: Were there practical conditions in the opinion?

A: The committee said the letters should go only to companies likely to be interested, and should be sent only when a client is currently seeking to borrow money.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which addressed advertising and solicitation of business. Solicitation by lawyers is now governed by Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.3). The committee's focus was on keeping the lawyer's outreach tied to existing client representation rather than turning it into a pitch for the lender's business.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27 [Canons of Professional Ethics; advertising and solicitation; see current Rule 4-7.18]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-14: "Attorney at Law" on Practice Checks
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-25: A Two-Office Firm's Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-64-77/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-64-77.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 64-77
January 13, 1965
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is not improper for an attorney to write directly to an insurance company in an attempt to obtain loans on behalf of his clients, provided that the letter does not directly or indirectly suggest that he or his office should be employed to represent the lending institution in the placing of mortgage funds.
Canon: 27
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar states that his office handles a relatively large volume of real estate transactions for clients who wish to obtain loans from life insurance companies. Presently, acting on behalf of his clients, he is placing these loans through various mortgage brokers who act as correspondents for the lending institutions. The lawyer would like to write directly to a number of life insurance companies in placing these loans. He would not intend to solicit legal employment in any manner and all fees paid in connection with placing loans would be paid by clients.
It is the unanimous opinion of our Committee that it would not be ethically improper to write directly to the insurance companies in question in an attempt to obtain loans from those companies on behalf of clients provided that the letter did not directly or indirectly suggest that the lawyer or his office should be employed to represent the lending institution in the placing of mortgage funds. Care should be taken that the letter is sent only to those companies who appear likely to be interested in such matters. It is our suggestion that such letters be sent only when a client is currently seeking to borrow money.