Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee Revised Opinion Number 14-04 (see Dissent) Issued November 12, 2014
1. What are the ethical limits to participating in attorney rating systems, especially those that identify “the Best Lawyer” or “Super Lawyer”?
2. Rule 7.1 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct (the “URPC”) prohibits false or misleading communications concerning a lawyer or a lawyer’s services. An unsubstantiated comparison of lawyers is false or misleading if it would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated. Advertisement of a rating, or of inclusion in a ranking list as being “super” or “best” or the like, by a comparing organization is permissible where the comparing organization has made an appropriate inquiry into the lawyer’s fitness, the lawyer does not pay to receive the rating itself (although she may pay for an investigation in accordance with Rule 7.2), the comparing organization’s methodology or standard used to determine the rating or ranking is fully disclosed and explained and conveniently available to the public, and the communication disclaims the approval of the Utah Supreme Court and/or the Utah State Bar. The factual basis for the comparison of the rated or listed lawyer’s services to the services of other lawyers must be verifiable in order to pass muster under Rule 7.1. Any advertisement must state that the lawyer was included in a “super” or other such list or ranking rather than describe the lawyer as being a “super lawyer” or the “best lawyer.” The statements that a lawyer is “super” or the “best” cannot be factually substantiated and are inherently misleading. (more…)
1. Do the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit referral agreements between two attorneys that require one of the attorneys (the “Referring Attorney”) to refer to the other (the “Receiving Attorney”) all clients that have a certain specified type of products liability claim?
2. The Committee concludes that an agreement between two attorneys which requires the Referring Attorney to refer to the Receiving Attorney all clients that have a certain specified type of claim may likely violate various provisions of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”).
3. The Referring Attorney, licensed to practice in the State of Utah, and the Receiving Attorney, licensed to practice elsewhere, enter into an agreement governed by Utah law (the “Agreement”) to jointly pursue certain kinds of products liability claims (the “Claims”) of individuals located in the State of Utah. The Agreement provides in relevant part: (more…)
September 30, 2005
HISTORY: On May 6, 2005, the Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee issued Utah Ethics Advisory Op. No. 05-03, 2005 WL 4748681 (Utah St. Bar). The Requestors of the Opinion filed a Petition for Review with the Board of Bar Commissioners pursuant § III(e)(1) of the Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee Rules of Procedure and § VI(a)(1) of the Utah State Bar Rules Governing the Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee. At a meeting of the Board of Bar Commissioners of the Utah State Bar on July 13, 2005, the Commission reviewed the conclusions and analysis of the majority view and the minority view of Opinion No. 05-03, and voted to issue a revised opinion, set forth below as Opinion No. 05-03. The initial Opinion No. 05-03 as originally issued by the Committee is appended in its entirety for historical reference only and should not be cited or used for purposes other than background. (more…)
Issued June 23, 2003
¶ 1 Issue: Is it ethical for a lawyer to advertise to provide legal services in Social Security Administration hearings to claimants who have been denied benefits, where nonlawyers are used by the lawyer in providing these services?
¶ 2 Opinion: With due consideration for the rules governing advertising and supervision of nonlawyers assistants, it is not unethical for a lawyer to use nonlawyer paraprofessionals to provide representation of clients in hearings before a government agency that authorizes nonlawyer representation. In particular, the lawyer does not assist the nonlawyer paraprofessional in the unauthorized practice of law under these circumstances.1 (more…)
Issued July 13, 2001
¶1. Issue: What are the ethical implications for a real estate broker who includes in his promotional material that he is also a lawyer?
¶2. Opinion: A lawyer functioning in a law-related profession, such as real estate brokerage, who holds out as either an active or inactive lawyer will be subject to the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct while engaged in that law-related profession.
¶3. Background: An individual who is currently licensed to practice law in State A and is an inactive member of the Utah State Bar intends to engage in providing real estate agent or real estate brokerage services in Utah. He has asked the Committee about the ethical consequences of stating in advertising for his Utah real estate services that he is a licensed and active lawyer in State A and an inactive Utah lawyer. (more…)
Issued August 29, 2001
¶ 1. Issue: Is it a violation of the ethical rules for an attorney or law firm to use trade names such as “Legal Center for the Wrongfully Accused” or “Legal Center for Victims of Domestic Violence” in selected court pleadings?
¶ 2. Opinion: It is not a violation of the ethical rules for an attorney or law firm to use trade names such as “Legal Center for the Wrongfully Accused” or “Legal Center for Victims of Domestic Violence” so long as the organization represents clients who claim to be in the indicated categories and provided the name is uniformly used for all such representation. Selective use of such trade names for some clients in the indicated categories but not others would violate Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1(a). (more…)
(Approved June 2, 2000)
Issue: Do the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit a lawyer licensed to practice in Utah from participating in an association of lawyers that would use joint letterhead, with a disclaimer that the association “is an affiliation of independent attorneys-not a partnership?”
Opinion: A lawyer does not violate the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct if he participates in an association or affiliation of individual lawyers and law firms, provided that he adheres to the applicable rules regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure of confidential information. However, it would be misleading, and therefore a violation of the Rules, for the lawyer to participate in such an association or affiliation if its members were to practice under a common firm name and were to use joint letterhead. The inclusion of a partnership disclaimer would not cure the misleading nature of the letterhead concerning the relationship among the attorneys. (more…)
(Approved June 30, 1999)
General Issue: What are the ethical considerations that govern a lawyer who wishes to conduct legal seminars; provide legal information to groups of retirement-home residents; host open houses; set up information booths at trade shows; participate in Bar-sponsored question-and-answer programs; or make in-person contacts with prospective clients at the request of their friends or relatives?
Summary: This Opinion analyzes and decides a range of related questions that have arisen in connection with lawyers’ marketing and solicitation activities. In general, we find that lawyers may make their services known through a variety of methods that do not involve uninvited, one-on-one approaches, discussions or solicitations. On the other hand, where monetary gain is a significant motivation, lawyers may not generally engage in uninvited, direct in-person communications with prospective clients in order to indicate the lawyer’s availability to accept professional employment. (more…)
(Approved April 28, 1995)
Issue: May a lawyer or a law firm enter a franchise agreement with a firm that provides marketing and other service arrangements?
Opinion: It is unethical for a lawyer or a law firm to enter into a franchise agreement when the franchisee is not in a partnership or professional corporation relationship with the franchisor.1 Analysis: This request was submitted by a solo practitioner who desires to enter a franchise arrangement with an out-of-state firm that provides a trade name, marketing and other service arrangements for franchisees. Because of the multiplicity of potential relationships or affiliations among law firms, this Opinion is limited to consideration of a “franchise” arrangement having as its essential element the marketing of legal services under a common trade name. We do not address the many issues that could arise if the franchisor had the ability through the agreement to prescribe methods and processes for the franchisee or otherwise affect the independent professional judgment of the lawyer.2We assume the franchise arrangement provides for lower operating costs without an impact on individual firm autonomy and that the relationship does not provide for a partnership or professional corporation arrangement between the franchisee and the franchisor. The franchisee firm and the franchisor firm will be marketed on letterhead, in law directories, etc., using a common trade name. (more…)