I'm on the approved-attorney panel of a prepaid legal service plan and want to send an introductory mass mailing to all plan members. Does that letter have to follow the solicitation rules?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney was on a panel of approved attorneys for a prepaid legal service plan and proposed to announce his affiliation by sending an introductory mass mailing to all plan members. He asked whether that mailing had to comply with Rule 7.3(b).

The panel concluded that it did. A participating lawyer's introductory mass mailing to plan members is a solicitation of prospective clients and therefore must comply with Rule 7.3(b), because an attorney's status as an approved attorney under the plan does not create a prior professional relationship with the members. The panel concluded that the proposed mailing had to be plainly marked "advertisement" in accordance with Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a), and that the attorney had to submit a copy of the letter and any attachments to Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel and otherwise comply with Rule 7.3(b)(1)(b), citing its earlier Opinions 96-28 and 96-31.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in December 1998, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 7.3 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, and the state's solicitation rule and its "advertisement"-marking and filing requirements may no longer read as they did here. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does an introductory mass mailing to prepaid legal plan members count as solicitation?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that a participating lawyer's introductory mass mailing to plan members is a solicitation of prospective clients and must comply with Rule 7.3(b).

Q: Doesn't being on the plan's approved panel create a prior relationship with members?

A: No. The opinion stated that an attorney's status as an approved attorney under the plan does not create a prior professional relationship with plan members, so the Rule 7.3(b) requirements applied.

Q: What does the lawyer have to do to comply?

A: The opinion required the mailing to be plainly marked "advertisement" under Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a), and required the attorney to send a copy of the letter and attachments to Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel and otherwise comply with Rule 7.3(b)(1)(b).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3 (Model Rule 7.3) as originally adopted. Rule 7.3(a) barred soliciting professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive is pecuniary gain, and treated a communication to a specific recipient that does not meet paragraph (b) as a solicitation. Rule 7.3(b)(1) required such written communications to be plainly marked "advertisement" on the envelope and each page, to be copied to Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel, and to be retained for three years. The panel concluded that plan membership did not supply the "prior professional relationship" that would take the mailing outside the rule.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.3 / RI RPC 7.3(a), 7.3(b) (direct contact with prospective clients; solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP Op. 96-28 (1996) and Op. 96-31 (1996) (Rule 7.3(b) requirements for written solicitations): cited on compliance

See also

• RI EAP Op. 98-16: Contacting Lawyer Referral Service clients is not solicitation
• RI EAP Op. 99-02: Publishing settlement details requires client consent

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%2098-15.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Final

                                Rhode Island Supreme Court
                                    Ethics Advisory Panel
                             Opinion No. 98-15, Request No. 759
                                  Issued December 9, 1998

Facts:

   The inquiring attorney is on a panel of approved attorneys for a prepaid legal service

plan. He/she proposes to announce his/her affiliation with the plan by sending an introductory
mass mailing to all plan members.

Issue Presented:

   The inquiring attorney asks whether such an introductory mass mailing must comply with

Rule 7.3(b).

Opinion:

    Yes. An introductory mass mailing from an attorney who participates in a prepaid legal

service plan to members of the plan must comply with the requirements of Rule 7.3(b).

Reasoning:

   A participating lawyer's introductory mass mailing to members of a prepaid legal service

plan is a solicitation of prospective clients and must therefore comply with Rule 7.3(b). An
attorney's status as an approved attorney under such a legal service plan does not create a prior
professional relationship with members of the plan.

     Rule 7.3 states in pertinent part:

        Rule 7.3. Direct Contact with Prospective Clients. - (a) A lawyer
        may not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with
        whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship, in
        person or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing
        so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. The term "solicit" includes contact in
        person, by telephone or telegraph, or by other communication directed
        to a specific recipient and not meeting the requirements of paragraph
        (b) of this rule.

        (b) Written communication.

Final 98-15
Page 2

   (1) Written communication to prospective clients with whom the
   lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship are subject
   to the following requirements:

          (a) Such written communications shall be plainly marked
          "advertisement" on the face of the envelope and at the top
          of each page of the written communication in type one size
          larger than the largest type used in the written
          communication.

          (b) A copy of each such written communication shall be
          sent to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel and
          another copy shall be retained by the lawyer for three (3)
          years. If written communications identical in content are
          sent to two (2) or more prospective clients, the lawyer may
          comply with this requirement by sending a single copy
          together with a list of the names and addresses of persons
          to whom the written communication was sent to the
          Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel as well as retaining
          the same information.

    Accordingly, the proposed introductory mass mailing to all members of a prepaid

legal service plan must be plainly marked "advertisement" in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a). The inquiring attorney must also submit a copy of the
letter and attachments, if any, to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel, and must
otherwise comply with Rule 7.3(b)(1)(b). See R.I. Sup. Ct. Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 96-
28 (1996) and Op. 96-31 (1996).