Can a lawyer join a commercial networking group that requires members to give each other referrals?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked the committee to reconsider Informal Opinion 1975, which had concluded that it violates RPC 7.2, and likely RPC 7.1 and 7.3, to participate in a commercial networking organization that includes mandatory referral requirements. The basis for reconsideration was that the particular organization had amended its policies to direct attorney members to follow their own professional ethical standards.

The committee concluded that Informal Opinion 1975 need not be reconsidered. It said the terms of the membership, including the requirement that members provide either referrals or bring potential new members to meetings, violate RPC 7.2 because they constitute giving "something of value" in return for recommending the lawyer's services. The committee added that the limitation on chapter membership, together with the lack of controls described in Informal Opinion 1975, raise the potential for violations of RPC 7.1 and 7.3.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Washington's lawyer-advertising and solicitation rules, including RPC 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, were revised in 2006 and amended in later years; the prohibition on giving something of value for recommending a lawyer's services has carried forward in the advertising rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

In practice

Under the Washington rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee reaffirmed Informal Opinion 1975 on these facts: membership in a commercial networking organization that requires members to supply referrals or recruit new members violates RPC 7.2 as giving something of value for recommendations. The committee said the organization's policy change, directing members to follow their own ethical standards, did not cure the problem, because the membership terms themselves were the violation. It also identified the membership limits and absence of controls as raising potential RPC 7.1 and 7.3 issues.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer join a networking group that requires members to refer business to each other?

A: The committee said no on these facts, reaffirming Informal Opinion 1975, because the mandatory-referral terms give something of value in return for recommending the lawyer's services, in violation of RPC 7.2.

Q: Why does requiring referrals violate the rule?

A: The committee said requiring members to provide referrals or bring in potential new members is giving "something of value" in return for recommendation of the lawyer's services, which RPC 7.2 prohibits.

Q: Did the group's policy telling lawyers to follow their own ethics rules fix the problem?

A: No. The committee said Informal Opinion 1975 need not be reconsidered, because the membership terms still violate RPC 7.2 and the membership limits and lack of controls raise potential RPC 7.1 and 7.3 violations.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets RPC 7.2 (Model Rule 7.2, advertising), which restricts giving something of value for recommending a lawyer's services, and references RPC 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1, communications concerning a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.3 (Model Rule 7.3, solicitation). The committee applied the "something of value" concept to the organization's mandatory-referral terms and treated the earlier Informal Opinion 1975 as controlling, declining to revisit it.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• Model Rule 7.2 / Washington RPC 7.2 (advertising; giving something of value for recommendations)
• Model Rule 7.3 / Washington RPC 7.3 (solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Informal Opinion 1975: participating in a commercial networking organization with mandatory referral requirements violates RPC 7.2 (reaffirmed by this opinion)

See also

• AL Ethics Op. 1997-01: Paying an Attorney Network Fee
• WA Ethics Op. 2038: Paying a Nonprofit for Referrals
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1068: Owning a Referral Business

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1299

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 2050
Year Issued: 2004
RPC(s): RPC 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, Inf Op 1975
Subject: Lawyer participating in commercial networking organization

The inquirer asks the Committee to reconsider Informal Opinion 1975, which opined that it is a violation of RPC 7.2, and likely a violation of RPCs 7.1 and 7.3, to participate in a commercial networking organization that includes mandatory requirements for referrals. The inquirer seeks reconsideration on the basis that the particular organization has amended its policies specifically to provide that attorney members are directed to follow their own professional ethical standards.

The Committee concludes that Informal Opinion 1975 need not be reconsidered. The terms of the business organization membership, including the requirement that members provide either referrals or bring potential new members to meetings, violate RPC 7.2 because they constitute giving “something of value” in return for recommendation of the lawyer’s services. In addition, the limitation on chapter membership, along with the lack of controls outlined in Informal Opinion 1975, raise the potential for violations of RPCs 7.1 and 7.3.