Ethics Hotline & Opinions

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2007-18

MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2007-18

Firm Sponsored Seminar for Non-Lawyers


You advise that your law office would like to conduct seminars for “non-lawyers” who are interested in obtaining information on the following domestic matters: 1) protective and peace orders, 2) filing for divorce, and 3) voluntary separation agreements. Your law office also intends to advertise the seminar in local newspapers and charge a fee to those attending. You state the advertisement will be in accordance with the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. During the seminars, written material will be prepared and provided to participants. If participants request representation for their legal problems afterwards, they will be given the opportunity to sign up for a consultation. You inquire as to whether your proposed plan would involve in-person solicitation and whether an attorney-client relationship is established by “simply attending the seminar.”

The Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct govern an attorney’s duty to a prospective client. Rule 7.3, entitled “Direct Contact with Prospective Clients,” provides:

  1.  A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted:
    1. (1) is a lawyer; or,
    2. (2) Has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.
  2. A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client by written, recorded or electronic communication or by in-person, telephone, or real-time electronic contract even when no otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if:
    1. (1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional or mental state of the prospective client could not exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer.
    2. (2) the prospective client has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or.
    3. (3) the solicitation involves coercion, duress, or harassment.
  3. Every written, recorded, or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from a prospective client known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter shall include the words “Advertising Material” on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication is a person in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2).
  4. Notwithstanding the prohibitions in paragraph (a), a lawyer may participate with a prepaid or group legal service plan operated by an organization not owned or directed by the lawyer that uses in-person or telephone contact to solicit memberships or subscriptions for the plan from persons who are not known to need legal services in a particular matter covered by the plan.

Generally, merely giving a speech to an audience does not amount to in-person solicitation. However, depending upon the specific actions of the attorneys presenting the seminar, the potential for in-person solicitation does exist. The seminars will be conducted for non-lawyers who are interested in obtaining information on domestic matters. Questions from the audience could trigger responses that depart from the seminar’s ostensible purpose, that is, imparting generalized information of common interest. The Committee cautions you that care should be taken to ensure that the seminar does not veer into targeted advice for a particular individual. The presenting attorneys must also take care not to use such questions as an opportunity to invite a request for legal representation. Doing so runs the risk of violating the prohibition on in-person solicitation.

As to whether “simply attending the seminar” creates an attorney-client relationship, the Committee generally refrains from definitive conclusions on this subject. We commend for your consideration the case of Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brooke, 374 Md. 155, 821 A. 2d 414 (2003). There, the Court of Appeals held that an attorney-client relationship is said to have been created when (1) a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney; (2) the advice or assistance sought pertains to matters within the attorney’s professional competence; and (3) the attorney expressly or impliedly agrees to give or actually give the desired advice or assistance. The Committee suggests, in light of this definition, that whether an attorney-client relationship is formed may depend not on mere attendance, but on the substance of what occurs at the seminar.

REFERENCES:

Ethics Opinion 81-36

ASSIGNED TO: Adrienne LaMarr Morgan, Esquire

DATE ASSIGNED: April 11, 2007

DATE DISTRIBUTED: May 27, 2008


DISCLAIMER: Opinions of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) Ethics Committee are an uncompensated service of the MSBA. This Committee’s opinions are not binding on the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, MSBA or this Committee. The reader is advised that subsequent judicial opinions, revisions to the rules of professional conduct, and future opinions of this Committee may render the Opinions stated herein outdated. As such, the Committee’s opinions are advisory only and neither the Committee nor the MSBA assumes any liability whatsoever with respect thereto. Accordingly, reliance upon the opinions of this Committee is solely at the risk of the user.