May a lawyer donate legal services to a charity so the charity can auction those services as a fundraiser?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an attorney may donate professional time or a particular legal service to a charitable organization so that the charity can auction those services at a fundraiser. Applying DR 2-103, the Committee concluded the arrangement would put the charity in the position of recommending the attorney and then being remunerated by him for the introduction.

The Committee drew a line between legal and nonlegal donations. Where the donated time is nonlegal, such as a sidewalk sketch or a photo at a street fair, there is no ethical concern. But donating legal services for auction is improper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates both the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs and the line of First Amendment decisions that reshaped lawyer advertising and solicitation. The recommendation-and-payment concern then in DR 2-103 is now treated under RPC 7.2 and RPC 7.3. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 donate legal services to be auctioned at a charity fundraiser?

A: No. The opinion concluded it is improper under DR 2-103 because the charity would be recommending the lawyer and being paid by him for the introduction.

Q: What was the specific ethical problem the Committee identified?

A: That the auction would place the charity in the position of recommending the attorney to the winning bidder and being remunerated by the attorney (through the donated service) for that introduction.

Q: Could the lawyer donate a nonlegal item or service instead?

A: Yes. The opinion stated that where the donated time is nonlegal, such as a sidewalk sketch or a photo at a street fair, there is no ethical concern.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-103, the rule then governing recommendation of and payment for professional employment. In current New Jersey terms, communications and solicitation of clients are governed by RPC 7.2 (advertising and payment for recommendations) and RPC 7.3 (solicitation of clients).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-103 (recommendation of professional employment), as in effect 1975; now MR 7.2 / NJ RPC 7.2 and MR 7.3 / NJ RPC 7.3

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 335: Attorney Organizing a Prepaid Legal Services Group
• NJ ACPE Op. 399: Attorney Organizing a Prepaid Legal Service Plan
• NJ ACPE Op. 332: Availability as a Consultant in the Law Journal and Lawyers Diary

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp319-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

98 N.J.L.J. 823, September 25, 1975

OPINION 319

Advertising - Solicitation Charity's Auction of Lawyer's Services

Is it proper for an attorney to donate professional time, or a particular legal service, to a charitable organization to enable that charity to auction such services in a fundraising?

Under DR 2-103, we believe that this arrangement puts the charity in the position of recommending that attorney and then being remunerated by him for the introduction. Where the donated time is nonlegal e.g., sidewalk sketch or photo at a street fair, there is no ethical concern.

Accordingly, this Committee is of the opinion that it is improper for an attorney to donate legal services to a charity for fundraising by the auction of such services.