Can a lawyer solicit another lawyer for contingent-fee work to help on a specific case or to revive a lost one?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it violates the Canons for a lawyer to solicit employment from another lawyer on a contingent basis to aid or assist in a specific case, or in a case the other lawyer had lost and forgotten but which the soliciting lawyer felt could be revived and properly disposed of.

All members of the Committee concluded that, on the bare facts stated, there would be a violation in both instances (9-0). The action was deemed to violate Canon 24 against solicitation and Canon 25 against stirring up litigation. The Committee noted the ABA Committee's construction of its Canon 27 (similar to Texas Canon 24) that "Canon 27 recognizes no distinction between solicitation of business from the lay public or from other lawyers," while also noting that solicitation of business from other lawyers is not prohibited in all cases, because Texas Canon 39 authorizes professional cards and listings designating special branches of practice to be inserted in reputable law lists and directories.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1957, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. It also predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which loosened categorical advertising restrictions, though prohibitions on solicitation were not eliminated. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 solicit another lawyer for case work on a contingent fee?

A: The Committee concluded that doing so, whether for a specific case or to revive a lost one, violates Canon 24 (solicitation) and Canon 25 (stirring up litigation).

Q: Does the no-solicitation rule apply even when the target is another lawyer?

A: The Committee noted the ABA's view that its parallel canon draws no distinction between soliciting business from the public or from other lawyers, so the prohibition applied here.

Q: Is all outreach to other lawyers prohibited?

A: No. The Committee noted that Canon 39 authorizes professional cards and listings of special branches of practice in reputable law lists and directories, so solicitation from other lawyers is not prohibited in all cases.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 24 (solicitation), 25 (stirring up litigation), and 39 (professional cards and law-list listings). The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 24, 25, and 39 (former canons on solicitation, stirring up litigation, and professional listings)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Canon 27 (parallel to Texas Canon 24), as construed by the ABA Committee

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 181: Soliciting Docket-Call Work From Other Lawyers
• TX Ethics Op. 196: Solicitation and "Feeding" of Law Business
• TX Ethics Op. 169: A Lawyer's Card in the Local Newspaper

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-161/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_161.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics for a lawyer to solicit employment from another lawyer on a contingent basis to aid or assist such other lawyer in:
A specific case?
A case that the other lawyer has lost and forgotten, but which the former lawyer feels can be revived and properly disposed of?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 264 (1966)

SOLICITATION - STIRRING UP LITIGATION - REVIVING CASES
An attorney may not solicit employment from another lawyer to aid the other lawyer in a specific case nor in one which the other lawyer has forgotten, but which the former lawyer feels may be revived.

Canons 24, 25, 39.

All members of the committee are of the opinion that on the bare facts stated there would be a violation of the Canons of Ethics in both instances.

Such action was deemed to violate Texas Canon 24 against solicitation and Texas Canon 25 against stirring up litigation.

It was pointed out that the American Bar Association Committee in construing its Canon 27 (similar to Texas Canon 24) held: "Canon 27 recognizes no distinction between solicitation of business from the lay public or from other lawyers." However, it was also pointed out that solicitation of business from other lawyers could not be said to be prohibited in all cases, since Texas Canon 39 authorizes professional cards and professional listings designating the special branches of the profession practiced to be inserted in reputable law lists and law directories. (9-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 161 (1957)