Can an Illinois lawyer pay to participate in a for-profit telephone or computerized client referral service?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a "talking computer system" that referred prospective clients to attorneys by category of service, by attorney name, or by cross-referral from other professionals. Each marketing area was limited to four participating attorneys in a given category. When a prospective client called, the agency provided telephone numbers and credentials of one attorney and referred the client to that attorney; if the client named an attorney who participated, the agency provided that attorney's information, otherwise it offered a participant as a referral. The question was whether a lawyer could participate as a paying member.

The opinion concluded the system, although it did not publish participating attorneys' names, was advertising by the participating attorneys and was clearly a referral program subject to the Illinois Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct, which are designed both to regulate the practice of law and to protect the public in receiving legal services. The opinion observed that responsible referral services should provide information in an unbiased manner and at reasonable cost, giving the public access to a broad spectrum of qualified, insured, and disciplinable attorneys.

The opinion concluded that the proposed system, rather than offering broad public exposure, was limited to four attorneys apparently selected on the timeliness of their response and willingness to pay for exclusivity. Because Rule 7.2(b) permitted paying the usual charges only of a not-for-profit referral service, payment for participation in the for-profit computerized system was not permitted under the Illinois Rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (pointing to Rule 7.2 with its Comments [6] and [7]), while noting the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer pay to join a for-profit referral service?

A: The opinion concluded a lawyer may not, because Rule 7.2(b) permitted paying the usual charges only of a not-for-profit referral service.

Q: Does it matter that the service did not publish the attorneys' names?

A: No. The opinion concluded the system was still advertising by the participating attorneys and a referral program subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: Why did limiting the service to four paying attorneys matter?

A: The opinion concluded the system offered narrow rather than broad public exposure, with participants selected on willingness to pay for exclusivity, contrary to the public-protection purpose of referral regulation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 7.2(b), which permitted a lawyer to pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service but not those of a for-profit service, read against the public-protection purpose of the advertising and referral rules (Model Rule 7.2).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.2 (advertising; paying for referrals) / Illinois Rule 7.2(b) (payment limited to not-for-profit referral services)

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 94-12: For-Profit Referral Services
• ISBA Ethics Op. 97-05: For-Profit Referral Service
• IL Ethics Op. 22-02: For-Profit Lawyer-Matching Service

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9223