Can a lawyer accept client referrals from a person who solicits charitable gifts for a religious organization?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned referrals of clients to the lawyer by a client who is employed by a national religious organization to solicit inter vivos and testamentary gifts to the religious foundation. The committee understood the facts to be that the potential clients, if interested, would contact the lawyer, that the attorney-client relationship would be established directly between the lawyer and the client, and that the fee agreement would be negotiated between them.
The committee was of the opinion that, based on the facts as presented, this would not be in violation of RPC 7.3. It did note that the lawyer should consider whether there would be any conflict between the lawyer's duty to the client and any duty the lawyer may have to the organization.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule then numbered RPC 7.3, governing direct contact with prospective clients, corresponds to Model Rule 7.3 and has since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer take referrals from someone whose job is soliciting gifts for a religious organization?
A: Per the opinion, yes on the facts presented. The committee was of the opinion that the arrangement would not violate RPC 7.3 where the potential clients contact the lawyer themselves and set the relationship and fee directly with the lawyer.
Q: What facts made the referral arrangement permissible?
A: The committee understood that interested potential clients would contact the lawyer, that the attorney-client relationship would be established directly between the lawyer and the client, and that the fee agreement would be negotiated between them.
Q: Did the committee flag any other concern?
A: Yes. The committee noted that the lawyer should consider whether there would be any conflict between the lawyer's duty to the client and any duty the lawyer may have to the organization.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 7.3, corresponding to Model Rule 7.3, which governs direct contact with prospective clients. The committee made the outcome turn on who initiates the relationship: because the potential clients would contact the lawyer and contract directly, the committee found no RPC 7.3 violation on the facts, while noting the separate question of a possible conflict between the lawyer's duties to the client and to the organization.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients), corresponding to Model Rule 7.3.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1148: contacting real estate brokers for closing referrals
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1155: direct-mail letters to a trade group's mailing list
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1068: owning a referral source and accepting its referrals
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=268
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1188
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 7.3
Subject: Referrals; solicitation
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning referrals of clients to you by a client who is employed by a national religious organization to solicit intervivos and testamentary gifts to the religious foundation. The Committee understood the facts to be that the potential clients, if interested, would contact you and that the attorney-client relationship would be established directly between you and that the fee agreement would be negotiated between you. The Committee was of the opinion that based upon the facts as presented, this would not be in violation of RPC 7.3. The Committee did note that you should consider whether there would be any conflict between your duty to the client and any duty you may have to the organization.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1988 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.