Can a lawyer offer discounted services to companies' employees and have the companies promote her, and can a lawyer pay an admin fee to a prepaid legal plan?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1997. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee addressed two arrangements under DR 2-103(E), which barred a lawyer from paying any person or organization to solicit professional employment, subject to an exception for cooperating with a bar-sponsored referral service or a qualified legal assistance organization.
In the first situation, a lawyer proposed offering employees of local businesses legal services below her usual rates, with the businesses notifying their employees, distributing her literature, and verifying employment status. The committee concluded this violated DR 2-103(E). Drawing the rule's line between solicitation (directed to particular prospective clients) and advertising (circulated generally), it found the lawyer was using the businesses to solicit their employees. The harder question was whether she was "paying" them, and the committee held she was: relying on its Opinion 87-3, it treated the agreed fee reduction itself as the payment, since the businesses were cooperating because the arrangement benefited them, not simply recommending the lawyer on their own. It rejected a contrary Arizona opinion that called discounted services a mere "soft benefit," and it found the businesses did not qualify as a qualified legal assistance organization, since the arrangement was designed to procure legal work for the lawyer.
In the second situation, a for-profit insurer wrote policies covering insureds' legal needs, took no profit from rendering legal services, was not designed to benefit lawyers, let insureds choose their own counsel, and charged participating lawyers a modest annual administrative fee under $100 for services like expedited claims processing and eligibility verification. The committee concluded the insurer fit the definition of a qualified legal assistance organization (prepaid plans being a main object of the exception), so the payment was not prohibited. On whether the administrative fee was permissible "cooperation," an issue left open in its Opinion 88-3, the committee concluded that, without disavowing concern that some payments in some contexts could exceed cooperation, the modest charge here had been justified and was permitted.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1997, before Massachusetts's adoption of the 2015 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Could the lawyer give discounts to employees if the employers promoted her to them?
A: No. The committee concluded that arrangement violated DR 2-103(E), treating the agreed fee reduction as "payment" to the businesses to solicit their employees, since the businesses cooperated because the deal benefited them.
Q: Did the businesses count as a "qualified legal assistance organization"?
A: No. The committee found the arrangement was designed to procure legal work for the lawyer, with the businesses serving only as a conduit to solicit their employees, so it did not fit the exception.
Q: Could a lawyer pay an administrative fee to a prepaid legal-services insurer?
A: Yes, on these facts. The committee found the insurer qualified as a qualified legal assistance organization and concluded the modest administrative fee under $100 was justified as permitted cooperation.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the predecessor disciplinary rule DR 2-103(E) (no payment to solicit professional employment; exception for cooperation with referral services and qualified legal assistance organizations), which corresponds to Model Rules 7.2 and 7.3 (payment for referrals and solicitation). The committee noted the text was carried into proposed Massachusetts Rule 7.3(e), and it relied on its Opinions 87-3 and 88-3.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rules 7.2, 7.3 / DR 2-103(E) (no payment to solicit; cooperation exception)
Other opinions cited:
- MBA Opinion 87-3 (reduced fees to a financial agency's clients treated as payment to solicit)
- MBA Opinion 88-3 (reduced fees to union members as cooperation with a qualified legal assistance organization)
- Arizona State Bar Opinion 96-09 (contrary view, treating discounts as a "soft benefit")
See also
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 97-6: Donating pro bono fees to a referring non-profit
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 08-01: Referral networking clubs
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1997 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.