Can a Washington lawyer pay for a listing in an out-of-state Internet legal directory like Martindale-Hubbell?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer sought guidance on using out-of-state Internet lawyer referral services that operated like the Martindale-Hubbell legal directory, charging a monthly or yearly fee for a listing rather than charging per referral or per client.

The committee explained that RPC 7.2, which deals with advertising generally, contained no Internet-specific rules but was defined broadly enough to include all "public media," so web-based legal directories should fall under RPC 7.2 just as their print counterparts do. Because RPC 7.2(a) incorporated RPC 7.1 by reference, the committee said RPC 7.1 applied to web-based directories as well.

Under RPC 7.1, the committee said, all communications about a lawyer's services for which the lawyer is responsible must be truthful and complete, so a lawyer is responsible for ensuring that listing content (including any material that purports to "recommend" the lawyer) is truthful and otherwise compliant. The committee added that a recommendation identifying the lawyer as among the "highest caliber" should contain a disclaimer that past performance does not guarantee future performance (RPC 7.1(b)), and that the basis for identifying the lawyer as among the "highest qualified" must be reasonably verifiable (RPC 7.1(c)). It noted that the ABA and various states, including Washington, were then examining how the rules apply to Internet advertising and solicitation across jurisdictions, and that changes might occur. The committee cautioned that its analysis applied only to the Washington rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Washington's lawyer-advertising rules (the RPC 7-series) have been revised since. The committee itself noted that the rules' application to Internet advertising was under active review. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Do the advertising rules apply to Internet legal directories, or only to print?

A: The committee concluded that RPC 7.2 is broad enough to include all "public media," so web-based legal directories fall under RPC 7.2 just as print directories do.

Q: Which rule controls the truthfulness of a directory listing?

A: The committee said RPC 7.1 applies through RPC 7.2(a), and that the lawyer is responsible for ensuring all listing content about the lawyer's services is truthful and complete.

Q: What about a directory calling the lawyer "highest caliber" or "highest qualified"?

A: The committee said a "highest caliber" recommendation should carry a disclaimer that past performance does not guarantee future performance (RPC 7.1(b)), and that any "highest qualified" basis must be reasonably verifiable (RPC 7.1(c)).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 7.2 (advertising; corresponding to Model Rule 7.2), reading its reference to "public media" to cover web-based directories. Through RPC 7.2(a)'s incorporation of RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; Model Rule 7.1), the committee applied RPC 7.1's truthfulness requirement, its disclaimer expectation (RPC 7.1(b)), and its verifiability requirement (RPC 7.1(c)) to directory content. The opinion reflects Washington's pre-2006 rule numbering.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.2 / Washington RPC 7.2 (advertising; "public media")
• Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; subsections (b) and (c))

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1824: "CFE" Designation in Advertising
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1182: Misleading Contingent-Fee Ads
• DC Bar Ethics Op. 342: Internet-Based Lawyer Referral Services

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1195

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1955
Year Issued: 2001
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.2
Subject: Use of out-of-state Internet lawyer referral services that operate in a similar fashion to Martindale-Hubbell legal directory

The inquirer seeks ethical guidance concerning the use of out-of-state Internet lawyer referral services that operate in a fashion similar to Martindale-Hubbell legal directory, which charges a monthly or yearly fee for a listing, but not on a per referral or per client basis.

RPC 7.2, which deals with advertising generally, does not contain rules specific to the Internet. Rather, the scope of RPC 7.2 is defined broadly enough to include all "public media". Therefore, Web based legal directories should fall under RPC 7.2 just as their print counterparts do. Further, because RPC 7.2(a) incorporates RPC 7.1 by reference, this provision should apply to Web based directories as well.

Under RPC 7.1, all communications concerning lawyer’s services for which the lawyer is responsible must be truthful and complete. Therefore, a lawyer is responsible for ensuring that all communications made in a Web based directory concerning the lawyer and the lawyer’s services are truthful and are otherwise in compliance with the RPCs just as with more traditional printed directories, including any material that may purport to "recommend" the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. However, the committee is of the opinion that recommendations such as identifying the lawyer as among the highest caliber should contain an appropriate disclaimer that reasonably allows the reader to understand that past performance does not guarantee future performance. See RPC 7.1(b). Furthermore, the basis upon which a lawyer is identified as being among the highest qualified must be reasonably verifiable. See RPC 7.1(c). The manner in which the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to Internet advertising and solicitation in multi-jurisdictions are currently being examined by the ABA and various states, including Washington. Changes may occur in the future.

Finally, the committee cautions the inquirer that this analysis applies only to the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct and the interpretation of those rules.