I want to mail realtors an ad offering title searches and a 'closing cost coupon' crediting buyers they refer to me. Does that comply with the advertising rules?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney sought an opinion on a proposed advertisement to send to realtors in the state. The advertisement offered title searches for realtors on new listings for a set fee; if a realtor referred the buyer to the attorney, the attorney would credit the buyer the same fee toward the buyer's title costs at closing. The credit would be memorialized in a "Closing Cost Coupon" given to the brokers, transferable to buyers, who would presumably turn them in for credit at closing. The proposed advertisement contained the specialization disclaimer required by Rule 7.4.

The panel set out the framework: Rule 7.1 requires communications about a lawyer's services to be truthful, to avoid creating unjustified expectations, and to avoid unsubstantiated comparisons; Rule 7.2(a) permits public dissemination of information about a lawyer's services on condition that the attorney provides a copy to Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel; and Rule 7.3, governing direct contact with prospective clients, requires that a direct-solicitation communication be marked "advertisement" on the envelope and at the top of each page in larger type than the communication, with the coupons likewise marked.

The panel advised that the proposed direct advertisement to realtors would comply with the advertising rules as long as the attorney stated "advertisement" in larger type on the letter, the envelopes, and the coupons, and provided the advertisement to Disciplinary Counsel within 48 hours of first dissemination. The panel declined to render an opinion on the coupons because it had insufficient information to conclude they were not misleading, and it cautioned the attorney regarding Rule 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer) and Rule 1.5 (fees).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies the advertising and solicitation rules as they then stood. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, and lawyer-advertising rules have continued to change in light of later court decisions. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis, including any filing requirement and labeling deadline. 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 attorney mail this advertisement to realtors?

A: The opinion allowed it if the attorney marked "advertisement" in larger type on the letter, envelopes, and coupons and provided a copy to Disciplinary Counsel within 48 hours of first dissemination.

Q: Did the panel approve the closing-cost coupons?

A: No. The opinion declined to opine on the coupons because it had insufficient information to conclude they were not misleading, and it cautioned about Rules 5.4 and 1.5.

Q: What labeling did the direct mailing require?

A: The opinion required "advertisement" to appear in larger type on the envelope and at the top of each page, and on the coupons, consistent with Rule 7.3.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1, truthful communications), 7.2(a) (Model Rule 7.2, public dissemination with a copy to Disciplinary Counsel), and 7.3 (Model Rule 7.3, direct contact with prospective clients and the "advertisement" labeling requirement), and noted the Rule 7.4 specialization disclaimer. It expressly reserved the coupon question and flagged Rule 5.4 (professional independence) and Rule 1.5 (fees) as areas of caution without resolving them.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / RI RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• Model Rule 7.2 / RI RPC 7.2(a) (advertising; copy to Disciplinary Counsel)
• Model Rule 7.3 / RI RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients; "advertisement" labeling)
• RI RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice; specialization disclaimer)
• Model Rule 5.4 / RI RPC 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer)
• Model Rule 1.5 / RI RPC 1.5 (fees)

See also

• RI EAP Op. 2019-04: Paying a marketing agency for broker/title referrals violates Rule 7.2(c)
• RI EAP Op. 95-14: A trade name for television advertising is misleading

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%2095-21.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FINAL

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION # 95-21, REQUEST # 583
Issued May 4, 1995

The inquiring attorney seeks an opinion regarding a proposed advertisement that the attorney proposes to send to realtors in this state. The advertisement states that the inquiring attorney offers title searches for realtors on new listings for a set fee. If the realtor refers the buyer to the inquiring attorney, he/she will credit the buyer the same fee towards the buyers' title costs at the closing. The credit will be memorialized in a "Closing Cost Coupon" given to the brokers. The "coupons" will be transferable to buyers, who will presumably turn them in to the inquiring attorney for credit at the closing. The proposed advertisement contains the specialization disclaimer required by Rule 7.4.

The general rule regarding information about legal services is Rule 7.1 entitled, "Communications Concerning A Lawyer's Services." That Rule states that all communications about a lawyer's services should be truthful, should not create an unjustified expectation about results and should not compare lawyer services unless factually substantiated. Rule 7.2(a) permits public dissemination of information regarding a lawyer's services on condition that the attorney provides a copy to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel.

Rule 7.3 entitled "Direct Contact with Prospective Clients" addresses direct solicitation by a lawyer. In order to have direct solicitation, the communication must be marked "advertisement" on the envelope and at the top of each page in larger type than the communication. The "coupons" must also be marked "advertisement" in accordance with the Rule.

The inquiring attorney's proposed direct advertisement to realtors will comply with the Rules on advertisement as long as he/she states in larger type the term "advertisement" on the letter, the envelopes and the "coupons." In addition, the advertisement should be provided to the Disciplinary Counsel's office within forty-eight (48) hours of the first dissemination.

The Panel declines to render an opinion as to the "coupons" because the Panel has insufficient information on which to conclude that the "coupons" are not misleading. The Panel cautions the attorney regarding Rule 5.4 "Professional Independence of a Lawyer" and Rule 1.5 "Fees."