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…)
Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee Opinion Number 14-05 Issued December 22, 2014
When an Attorney (A) is representing another Lawyer (L) in a legal malpractice or disciplinary action, and Lawyer L undertakes to represent a client in a matter adverse to a client of Attorney A, what are the ethical considerations?
2. Attorney A representing a Lawyer L in a disciplinary or legal malpractice matter may face a concurrent conflict of interest if the Lawyer L (client) represents an individual who is an opposing party to a client represented by Attorney A. A concurrent conflict of interest would arise if there is a significant risk that Attorney A’s representation of Lawyer L be will materially limited by her responsibilities to the client being sued by Lawyer L’s client; or if there is a significant risk that Attorney A’s representation of a client against Lawyer L’s client will be materially limited by her representation of Lawyer L. Whether this situation poses a serious risk of materially limiting Attorney A’s representation requires analyzing the factual situations presented. (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…)
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)? (more…)
1. Under what conditions is it appropriate for a personal injury lawyer to “outsource the calculation, verification and resolution of alleged health insurance liens and subrogation/reimbursement claims” and pass the outsourced resolution fee to the client as a “cost.” There are two questions posed to the committee. First, can the lawyer appropriately outsource the lien resolution? Second, is the treatment of the lien resolution fee appropriately treated a “cost” to the client?
2. It is ethical for a personal injury lawyer to engage the services of a lien resolution company that can provide expert advice or to associate with a law firm providing this service. (more…)