Can a lawyer work as an 'Advanced Underwriter' for a life insurance company while running a private law practice that exchanges referrals with it?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned possible conflicts between the lawyer's employment as an "Advanced Underwriter" with a life insurance company and the lawyer's private law practice. The committee had a number of concerns about the proposal.

On the acknowledgment form, the committee was of the opinion that the form did not fully disclose the potential conflicts as required by RPC 1.8, and was concerned that language about past and future sales might be misleading by implying the lawyer was in fact involved in those sales. The committee was further of the opinion that the lawyer's involvement in the sales of insurance might affect the lawyer's independent judgment in violation of RPC 1.8(f). It was also of the opinion that the referral of prospective insurance customers was something of value for which the lawyer received referrals to the law practice, which would violate RPC 7.2(c). Finally, the committee was of the opinion that the proposed division of fees would violate RPC 5.4(c).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 also sell insurance for a company and refer clients between the two?

A: Under this 1991 opinion, the committee identified multiple violations in the proposal as structured, including trading referrals (RPC 7.2(c)) and dividing fees (RPC 5.4(c)).

Q: What was wrong with the acknowledgment form?

A: The committee was of the opinion that it did not fully disclose the potential conflicts required by RPC 1.8 and that its language about sales might be misleading.

Q: Why was the sales role itself a concern?

A: The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer's involvement in selling insurance might affect the lawyer's independent professional judgment in violation of RPC 1.8(f).

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.8(a) and (f) addressed business transactions with clients and compensation affecting independent judgment, RPC 5.4(c) protected professional independence, and RPC 7.2(c) barred giving something of value for a referral, the subjects the Model Rules place in Rules 1.8, 5.4, and 7.2. The committee applied each to a different feature of the dual insurance-and-law arrangement.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.8 (business transactions; third-party compensation)
• ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence)
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (referrals; something of value)
• Washington RPC 1.8(a), 1.8(f), 5.4(c), 7.2(c)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1346: Insurer Paying Lawyers to Explain Its Product
• WA Ethics Op. 1383: Referring Clients to a Relative

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=476

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning possible conflicts between your employment as an "Advanced Underwriter" with a life insurance company and your private law practice. The Committee had a number of concerns regarding your proposal. Regarding your specific inquiries as to your acknowledgement form, the Committee was of the opinion that the [form] does not fully disclose the potential conflicts as required by RPC 1.8. The Committee was also concerned that the language regarding past and future sales may be misleading as it inferred that you were in fact involved in past and future sales of insurance. The Committee was further of the opinion that your involvement in the sales of insurance might affect your independent judgment in violation of RPC 1.8(f). In addition, the Committee was of the opinion that the referral of prospective insurance customers was something of value for which you received referrals to your law practice, which would violate RPC 7.2(c). Finally, the Committee was of the opinion that the proposed division of fees would violate RPC 5.4(c).