Ethics Advisory Opinion 14-04

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.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 14-03

Utah State Bar
Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee

Opinion Number 14-03

Issued April 22, 2014


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:

Ethics Advisory Opinion 14-02

Utah State Bar
Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee 

Opinion Number 14-02 

Issued January 14, 2014


1.         Is an Agreement between a non-lawyer Marketer and a Law Firm where the Marketer conducts telephone marketing to solicit and refer clients to Law Firm in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct where the payment to the Marketer matches a percentage of the fees paid to the Law Firm by the clients referred to the Law Firm by the Marketer?

2.         If the Agreement is in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct must the Attorney retained by Marketer to enforce the Agreement inform the appropriate professional authority pursuant to Rule 8.3(a)?

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 13-02



Opinion No. 13-02 

Issued April 9, 2013 


      1.   The requesting attorney seeks an opinion on several related matters, which the Committee has combined into three general areas of inquiry: (i) may an attorney pay a non-lawyer, directly or indirectly, for a referral; (ii) may an attorney enter into a joint marketing and/or cross-referral arrangement with a non-attorney; and (iii) may an attorney acquire an ownership or equity interest in, or making a loan to, a business, with the expectation of receiving referrals from the business.


2.   Subject to the exceptions outlined below, the opinions of the Committee regarding the stated issues are:

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 07-01

Issued March 9, 2007
¶ 1. Issue:
May a lawyer purchase the exclusive right to referrals generated from the membership base of an organization whose members from time to time may have need of the legal services offered by that lawyer?

¶ 2. Opinion: The proposed arrangement, which contemplates the exclusive funneling of referrals to one lawyer or firm, is not permitted, as it violates Rule 7.2(b), which prohibits a lawyer from giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services. The fact that the recommendation is made by an organization does not change the outcome here.
¶ 3. Facts: A Utah for-profit organization provides an array of services to its members, including assistance in finding legal representation for its members for various circumstances, including immigration, criminal defense and personal injury following an automobile accident. This organization has solicited a Utah law firm to purchase the exclusive right to receive referrals generated by its membership base, for members who need legal consultation following an automobile accident. (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…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 01-02

(Issued February 21, 2001)
¶ 1 Issue
: Does a lawyer violate the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct if he agrees to discount his fees to a client until a referral fee initially charged to the client by a lawyer-referral service is reimbursed to the client?

¶ 2 Opinion: A lawyer who agrees to discount his fees to a referred client in order to permit the client to be reimbursed for the referral fee that the client originally paid to the referral service makes an indirect payment to the referral service and, therefore, violates the prohibition against payment of referral fees on a fee-per-case basis under Utah Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2(c). (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 99-04

(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…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-06

(Approved May 30, 1997)
Under the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, what are the ethical limitations that govern attorneys’ acceptance of clients’ credit cards to pay fees and costs?

Opinion: Generally, attorneys may accept payment for fees and costs by credit card in the same way that other merchants and service-providers do. This general conclusion is, in part, in conflict with Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 21, which is accordingly overruled.
Background: In 1975, the Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee issued Opinion No. 21, which placed significant restraints on the acceptance of credit cards by attorneys in payment of fees and cost. That opinion was issued under the then-effective Code of Professional Responsibility, which, among other differences, is at variance with the current Utah Rules of Professional Conduct in the area of attorney advertising. To the extent the world of communicating about attorneys’ services has changed, this Committee has been asked to revisit the issue of attorneys’ acceptance of credit cards under today’s Rules. (more…)