#Kentucky ethics opinion office sharing full
#Kentucky ethics opinion office sharing professional

Many legal services are offered for this fee arrangement from consultation after a document review to full service 'start-to-finish' work regarding a particular matter.īoth offerings require the consumer to make payment for the legal services through the website's payment portal for deposit into the matching service's account before any contact by the consumer with a participating lawyer. Another legal service offered on the website is a 15 or 30 minute consultation with a participating lawyer for a fixed fee provided by the next available participating lawyer who calls the consumer within 15 minutes of the consumer's purchase of the consultation. After paying the fixed fee, the consumer reviews profiles of participating lawyers and selects a lawyer to provide the legal services. For example, a consumer selects the desired legal services, pays a set price for a 15 minute consultation, pays another set price for review of a business document with a 30 minute consultation, or pays a set price for 'start-to-finish' work.

Many legal services are offered on the website for a fixed fee. All participating lawyers are branded with the business name to associate them with the non-law firm entity in advertisements to drive prospective clients to the website to purchase legal services at fixed prices. One such business model has a national website that includes in its business name 'legal services' to market its online matching services to consumers needing legal services. To evaluate this issue, this Opinion reviews two online lawyer matching services to consider whether Michigan lawyers can remain ethically compliant if becoming a participating lawyer. Legal matching services are not new, but innovation in technology has spearheaded private entrepreneurial online matching services beyond the usual bar association non-profit lawyer referral services.

The assessment requires a careful review of the business model to determine whether it constitutes a for-profit lawyer referral service and if compliance with the terms for participation requires a Michigan lawyer to violate the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). The Committee has been asked to consider whether Michigan lawyers may ethically participate in online services that match prospective clients with lawyers.

Violates MRPC 5.3 to the extent that the conduct of the matching service when performing administrative 'back office' services traditionally done through the law firm does not comport with the professional obligations of the lawyer.

Assists in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of MRPC 5.5(a) to the extent the online service holds itself out as a provider of legal services and guarantees satisfaction.

Impedes compliance with MRPC 1.16(d) and its requirement that any unearned prepaid fees and unexpended advances on costs must be refunded.

Subverts compliance with MRPC 1.15, which requires a lawyer to safeguard legal fees and expenses paid in advance by depositing them into a client trust account until the fee is earned and the expense is incurred.

Violates MRPC 7.2(c), which prohibits a lawyer from giving anything of value to recommend a lawyer's services unless it is a reasonable payment for advertising the lawyer's services, the usual charges for a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, or payment for the sale of a law practice.Violates MRPC 5.4, which prohibits a lawyer from sharing fees with a nonlawyer.Violates MRPC 6.3(b), which prohibits a lawyer from participating in for-profit lawyer referral services.Therefore, a Michigan lawyer participating in this business model: Participation in a for-profit online matching service which for a fee matches prospective clients with lawyers constitutes an impermissible sharing of fees with a nonlawyer if the attorney's fee is paid to and controlled by the nonlawyer and the cost for the matching service is based on a percentage of the attorney's fee paid for the legal services provided by the lawyer.

#Kentucky ethics opinion office sharing full

#Kentucky ethics opinion office sharing professional