Can a lawyer distribute brochures about legal services to the public and in chiropractors' offices without it being improper solicitation?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a lawyer who wanted to distribute brochures about the lawyer's legal services to the public and in chiropractors' offices, and whether that would constitute solicitation in violation of the Rules.

The committee concluded that the conduct does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. It found that, under RPC 7.1, the brochure did not appear to contain false or misleading communications; under RPC 7.2, the lawyer was not giving anything of value to the chiropractors; under RPC 7.2(c) and (d), the brochure contained the lawyer's name; and under RPC 7.3, the lawyer was not directly soliciting professional employment in person or by telephone. On those circumstances, the committee found the conduct complied with the Rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's lawyer-advertising and solicitation rules (RPC 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3) were revised in the 2006 revisions and again in later amendments, so verify the current rule text before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Is handing out brochures in a chiropractor's office improper solicitation?

A: No. On the facts described, the committee concluded the conduct does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: Why was the arrangement permissible?

A: The committee found the brochure was not false or misleading (RPC 7.1), the lawyer gave nothing of value to the chiropractors (RPC 7.2), the brochure contained the lawyer's name (RPC 7.2(c) and (d)), and the lawyer was not directly soliciting employment in person or by telephone (RPC 7.3).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services, MR 7.1), RPC 7.2 (advertising, including the requirement that a communication include the lawyer's name and the prohibition on giving anything of value for a recommendation, MR 7.2), and RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients, MR 7.3). The committee treated the brochure as permitted advertising rather than prohibited in-person or telephone solicitation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Washington RPC 7.1
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising); Washington RPC 7.2, 7.2(c), 7.2(d)
• ABA Model Rule 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients); Washington RPC 7.3

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1275: Direct-Mail Solicitation Brochure
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1218: Targeted Direct Mail
• WA Ethics Op. 1825: Advertising by Posting Fliers

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1070

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1877
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.2; 7.3
Subject: Solicitation; advertising; distribution of brochures at chiropractor's office

This inquiry concerns the ethical considerations of the inquiring lawyer distributing brochures about the lawyer’s legal services to the public and in chiropractors’ offices and whether that action would constitute solicitation, which is an ethical violation.

The conduct of the inquiring lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. Pursuant to RPC 7.1, the brochure does not appear to contain false or misleading communications. Pursuant to RPC 7.2, the lawyer is not giving anything of value to the chiropractors. Pursuant to RPC 7.2(c) and (d), it does contain his name. Pursuant to 7.3, he is not directly soliciting professional employment in person or by telephone. Under the circumstances, it appears that his conduct complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct.