Can a criminal-defense lawyer advertise in the Yellow Pages that investigative services are available?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer concentrates his law practice in criminal law, has access to licensed investigators, and wished to state in his Yellow Pages advertisement that investigative services are available. The committee concluded that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would prohibit the lawyer from doing so, provided the statement is accurate and not misleading, under RPC 7.1.

The committee added a clarification prompted by the lawyer's suggestion that RPC 1.6(a) might create a privilege for an investigator the lawyer retains. It stated that RPC 1.6(a) does not create an enforceable privilege, but only an ethical obligation on the lawyer. The extent of any privilege the investigators might have by virtue of their employment through the lawyer is a legal question beyond the committee's purview, and the committee said the lawyer should consider conducting appropriate legal research into that question before directing the investigators' activities.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 advertising rule (RPC 7.1) and confidentiality rule (RPC 1.6) were both revised in the 2006 revisions, so verify the current rule text before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise that investigative services are available?

A: Yes. The committee concluded that nothing in the Rules prohibits the statement, provided it is accurate and not misleading under RPC 7.1.

Q: Does RPC 1.6 give the lawyer's investigator a privilege?

A: No. The committee stated that RPC 1.6(a) does not create an enforceable privilege, only an ethical obligation on the lawyer; the extent of any privilege is a legal question beyond the committee's purview.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 7.1, treating the advertisement as permitted so long as it is accurate and not misleading. It distinguished RPC 1.6(a) (confidentiality, MR 1.6), explaining that the rule imposes an ethical duty on the lawyer rather than creating an evidentiary privilege for a retained investigator.

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 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Washington RPC 1.6(a)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1877: Brochures at a Chiropractor
• WA Ethics Op. 1884: Mailing Ads to Docketed Parties
• WA Ethics Op. 1825: Advertising by Posting Fliers

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1086

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1892
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 7.1
Subject: Advertising availability of investigative services in Yellow Pages

The inquiring lawyer concentrates his law practice in the area of criminal law. He has access to licensed investigators and wishes to state in his yellow pages advertisement that investigative services are available.

The committee stated that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would prohibit the lawyer from stating in his yellow pages advertisement that investigative services are available, provided that the statement is accurate and not misleading. RPC 7.1.

However, the lawyer’s letter raised some concern for the committee when the lawyer suggested that RPC 1.6(a) may create a privilege for an investigator the lawyer retains. RPC 1.6(a) does not create an enforceable privilege, but only an ethical obligation to the lawyer. The extent of any privilege, which the investigators might have by virtue of their employment through the lawyer, is a legal question that is beyond the purview of the committee. However, the lawyer should consider conducting appropriate legal research into the question before directing the activities of the investigators, whom the lawyer retains.