May a lawyer be listed by name on the public website of an organization made up of lawyers and nonlawyers?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer asked whether a website, available to the general public, of an organization composed of lawyers and nonlawyers that posted its membership and specifically identified which members were lawyers would violate the advertising rules (RPC 7).

The committee stated that a website listing of membership that identifies the lawyers is advertising generally permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct. It placed the requirements of truthfulness and retention of hard copies of the listing on each lawyer. The committee reminded lawyers that there must be no indication that professional independence is sacrificed, no fee-sharing arrangements with nonlawyers, and no partnerships formed with nonlawyers, all of which RPC 5.4 prohibits. It said lawyers must be watchful of RPC 7.4 and ensure that no implication that any lawyer is a specialist is published on the site, and that articles must not try ongoing cases online or in the press. The committee referred the inquirer to Formal Opinions 22 and 113.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The lawyer-advertising rules in particular were substantially revised in that process. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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's name appear on the public website of a group that includes nonlawyers?

A: Yes. The committee said a membership listing that identifies the lawyers is advertising generally permitted by the rules, with the duties of truthfulness and record-retention falling on each lawyer.

Q: What RPC 5.4 limits did the committee flag for such a listing?

A: It reminded lawyers there must be no indication that professional independence is sacrificed, no fee-sharing arrangements with nonlawyers, and no partnerships formed with nonlawyers, all of which RPC 5.4 prohibits.

Q: Could the listing describe a lawyer as a specialist?

A: The committee said lawyers must be watchful of RPC 7.4 and ensure that no implication that any lawyer is a specialist is allowed to be published on the site.

Background and rules framework

The opinion treats a membership website as a form of lawyer advertising under the RPC 7 advertising rules, then layers on two constraints. RPC 5.4 (corresponding to Model Rule 5.4) bars sharing fees or forming partnerships with nonlawyers and protects the lawyer's professional independence; the committee read it to forbid any indication on the site that independence is sacrificed. RPC 7.4 (corresponding to Model Rule 7.4) governs claims of specialization; the committee read it to forbid any implication that a listed lawyer is a specialist. The committee referred the inquirer to its earlier Formal Opinions 22 and 113.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 5.4 / Washington RPC 5.4 (professional independence; no fee-sharing or partnership with nonlawyers)
• Model Rule 7.4 / Washington RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization)

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinions 22 and 113: referenced by the committee for further guidance

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1075: "Certified," "Diplomate," "Specialist"
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1143: Salaried Nonprofit Lawyer, Fee-Sharing
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1071: Paid Personal Referral Service
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1018: Law Firm Brochure Advertising

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1157

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1917
Year Issued: 2000
RPC(s): RPC 5.4, 7.4; Formal Opinion 22 and 113
Subject: Lawyer's name on Web site accessible to the general public of the membership of the site that is composed of lawyers and nonlawyers

The inquiring lawyer asks if a web site, available to the general public, of an organization composed of lawyers and nonlawyers that posts its membership specifically identifying those who are lawyers violates RPC 7.

The committee stated that the web site listing of membership that identifies the lawyers is advertising generally permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct. The requirements of truthfulness and retention of hard copies of the listing fall on each lawyer. Lawyers are reminded that there must be no indication that professional independence is sacrificed, no fee sharing arrangements may be entered with nonlawyers, or partnerships formed with nonlawyers, all of which are prohibited by RPC 5.4. Lawyers must be watchful of the provisions of RPC 7.4 and assure that no implication that any lawyer is a specialist is allowed to be published on the site. Finally, articles must not try on-going cases online or in the press. The inquirer is referred to Formal Opinions 22 and 113.