MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2001-26
Responsibility of one lawyer for door-to-door solicitations by lawyer with whom she may affiliate
Your letter advises that another lawyer has asked you to become affiliated with her on a particular matter. You also advise that this lawyer went door-to-door in her community soliciting businesses that had similar problems with the same potential defendant. You indicate that this lawyer signed a number of clients as a result of this solicitation and that she is also a plaintiff in the action. You state that you are concerned about the manner in which the other lawyer solicited clients and inquire whether you would be at risk of any ethics violation(s) if you do become a lawyer of record in this matter with the other lawyer.
We direct your attention to Rules 7.2 and 7.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, which generally limit lawyer advertising to communications that do not involve personal contact. We also direct your attention to Ethics Opinions 95-10; 94-16; 92-43; and 87-2, which address limits on direct contact by a lawyer with potential clients. These opinions are available for your review at most Circuit Court libraries as well as the msba.org website. See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Franz, 355 Md. 752 (1999).
The Committee notes that Rule 7.2(f) provides that:
A lawyer, including a participant in an advertising group or lawyer referral service or other program involving communications concerning the lawyer’s services, shall be personally responsible for compliance with the provisions of Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 and shall be prepared to substantiate compliance.
In the event that you do elect to become affiliated with the other lawyer with regard to the subject litigation, you would both be responsible for compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Your inquiry does not indicate whether the other lawyer has ceased door-to-door solicitations, It is not within the province of the Committee on Ethics to opine on the ethical propriety of the actions of an attorney that have already been committed. The applicable Rules are silent with regard to your responsibility for the conduct of the other lawyer prior to your affiliation with her. However, the Committee reminds you that Rule 8.3 requires a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
The Committee trusts that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
References: Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2, 7.3;
Attorney Grievance Comm’m v. Franz, 355 Md. 752 (1999).