Can a law firm join a private referral service whose ads call its lawyers 'the best' and that omits the disclosures a lawyer referral service must include?

Plain-English summary

A law firm wanted to join a private referral service, "Consumer Connection," which recruited participants across many business and professional categories and routed consumers to them through a toll-free number advertised on television, radio, newspapers, and direct mail across eastern North Carolina. The service's promotional material claimed it represented only "quality" businesses and that consumers "always get the best from Consumer Connection." The material did not state that a list of all participating lawyers would be mailed free of charge on request, and did not indicate that the service was not operated or endorsed by any public agency or disinterested organization.

The opinion concluded that the firm could not participate as described. Rule 2.2(c) permits a lawyer to participate in and share the cost of a private lawyer referral service only if certain conditions are met, including that all advertisements of the service state a list of all participating lawyers will be mailed free of charge on request and indicate that the service is not operated or endorsed by any agency or disinterested organization, citing Rule 2.2(c)(5)(b) and (c). Because the promotional material omitted that required information, it would be inappropriate for a lawyer to participate. The opinion added that characterizing participating lawyers as "the best" would be a misleading communication in violation of Rule 2.1(c), because it constitutes a comparison of the participating lawyers' services with those of other lawyers in a way that cannot be factually substantiated. The opinion noted that if the deficiencies were remedied, there would appear to be no other impediment to a lawyer's participation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the North Carolina State Bar's adoption of the 2003 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer join a private referral service whose ads omit the required disclosures?

A: No. The opinion held that Rule 2.2(c) requires the service's advertisements to offer a free list of participating lawyers and to disclaim public-agency or disinterested-organization operation or endorsement, and this service's ads did neither.

Q: Is advertising a lawyer as "the best" permissible?

A: No. The opinion held that calling the participating lawyers "the best" is a misleading comparison under Rule 2.1(c) that cannot be factually substantiated.

Q: Could the firm participate if the advertising were corrected?

A: The opinion stated that if the noted deficiencies were remedied, there would appear to be no other impediment to a lawyer's participation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied North Carolina Rule 2.2(c), governing participation in private lawyer referral services and its required advertising disclosures (corresponding to Model Rule 7.2), and Rule 2.1(c), barring misleading comparisons of a lawyer's services that cannot be factually substantiated (corresponding to Model Rule 7.1). The analysis turns on the missing disclosures and the unsubstantiated "best" claim.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; misleading comparisons)
• MR 7.2 (advertising; lawyer referral services)
• North Carolina Rule 2.1(c) (misleading comparison of services)
• North Carolina Rule 2.2(c)(5)(b) and (c) (referral service advertising disclosures)

See also

• NC Ethics Op. RPC 161: television commercials for legal services
• NC Ethics Op. RPC 205: referral fees

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/rpc-135/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

Law Firm ABC would like to participate in a private referral service doing business as "Consumer Connection." The referral service in question recruits participants from many different business and professional categories. Consumers desiring particular types of business and professional services are referred to participating entities when they call "Consumer Connection's" toll free number. The toll free number and information about the referral service are disseminated to consumers by means of television, radio, newspapers and direct mail advertising throughout eastern North Carolina. Promotional material made available to the Ethics Committee by the referral service indicates that "Consumer Connection" only represents "quality" businesses and that consumers "always get the best from Consumer Connection!" Although the promotional material indicates that "Consumer Connection is a locally owned and locally operated service...," it does not state that a list of all participating lawyers will be mailed free of charge to members of the public upon request or state that such information may be obtained. Further, it does not indicate that the service is not operated or endorsed by any public agency or disinterested organization.

May Law Firm ABC participate in the referral service as described?

Opinion:

No. Rule 2.2(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer may participate in and share the cost of a private lawyer referral service only so long as certain specified conditions are met. Among the conditions are requirements that all advertisements of the service "state that a list of all participating lawyers will be mailed free of charge to members of the public upon request... and indicate that the service is not operated or endorsed by any agency or any disinterested organization." Rule 2.2(c)(5)(b) and (c). Since the promotional material advertising the referral service fails to include the required information, it would be inappropriate for a lawyer to participate in the referral service. Furthermore, the characterization of participating lawyers as "the best" would appear to be a misleading communication violative of Rule 2.1(c) in that it "constitutes a comparison of the participating lawyers' services with those of other lawyers" in a way which cannot be factually substantiated.

If the deficiencies noted above were remedied, there would appear to be no other impediment to a lawyer's participation in the referral service.