I want to broker medical experts and consultants to other attorneys for malpractice and personal injury cases, earning a contingent fee for the brokering (not for legal services). Can I do that, and can I market it using letterhead that shows I'm also a lawyer?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked the panel whether it was permissible under the Code of Professional Responsibility for him to enter into a brokerage contract with an entity providing access to medical consultants and Board Certified medical experts for use in medical malpractice or other personal injury cases. Under the contract, he would be paid in part on a contingent fee basis, but he stated that all fees earned would be strictly for his services as a broker, not for legal services. He also wanted to publicize the venture through direct mailings to other attorneys, using letterhead that included his name, legal degree, and the name of his medical consulting services corporation.

The panel found that the brokerage service described was a commercial rather than a legal activity, and so was permissible under the Code, provided the attorney conformed to DR 2-103(E). It quoted that rule, which bars a lawyer engaged in both the practice of law and another profession or business from so indicating on his letterhead, office sign, or professional card, and bars identifying himself as a lawyer in any publication connected with the other business. On that basis, the panel held it was impermissible for the attorney to use stationery indicating he was both a lawyer and a provider of expert services, to use his law office stationery in connection with the brokerage role, or to identify himself as a lawyer in any documents generated in connection with the brokerage.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the Rhode Island Supreme Court's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it applies the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility's Disciplinary Rules then in effect. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 I take a contingent fee for brokering medical experts to other lawyers in malpractice and personal injury cases?

A: Yes, according to this opinion, since the panel found the brokerage service to be a commercial rather than legal activity, permissible under the Code, provided the fees are for the brokering itself and not for legal services.

Q: Can I use letterhead showing both my law credentials and my medical consulting business when I publicize the brokerage?

A: No. The opinion holds that DR 2-103(E) bars a lawyer engaged in another profession or business from indicating that dual role on letterhead, an office sign, or a professional card, or from identifying himself as a lawyer in any publication connected with the other business.

Q: Can I use my law office's regular stationery for the brokerage mailings?

A: No, according to the opinion; it is impermissible to use law office stationery in connection with the broker role, or to identify oneself as a lawyer in documents generated for the brokerage.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies DR 2-103(E) of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, then in force in Rhode Island, which bars a lawyer engaged in both the practice of law and another profession or business from indicating that dual engagement on letterhead, office signage, or professional cards, or from identifying himself as a lawyer in publications connected with the other business.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• RI DR 2-103(E) (barring dual lawyer/other-business identification on letterhead, signage, or publications)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2088-28.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #88-28, REQUEST #29
Issued October 20, 1988

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether it is permissible under the Code of Professional Responsibility for him to enter into a brokerage contract with an entity which provides access to the services of medical consultants and Board Certified medical experts for use in medical malpractice or other personal injury cases. The inquiring attorney advises the Panel that under the terms of this brokerage contract he would be paid, in part, on a contingent fee basis but that all fees earned would be strictly for his services as a broker not for legal services. He further indicates that he would like to publicize this venture through direct mailings to other attorneys, using letterhead which includes his name, legal degree and the name of his medical consulting services corporation.

The brokerage service described is a commercial rather than a legal activity; thus it is permissible under the Code provided the inquiring attorney conforms to the requirements of DR 2-103(E). Disciplinary Rule 2-103(E) provides:

A lawyer who is engaged both in the practice of law and another profession or business shall not so indicate on his letterhead, office sign or professional card, nor shall he identify himself as a lawyer in any publication in connection with his other profession or business.

It is impermissible for the inquiring attorney to use stationery which indicates that he is a lawyer as well as a provider of expert services. It would also be impermissible for the inquiring attorney to use his law office stationery in connection with his role as a broker of expert services, or to identify himself as a lawyer in any documents generated in connection with his role as a broker.

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.