Ethics Opinions
Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct
Date of Opinion:
12/05/2000
Opinion Number:
00-09
Title:
REFERRAL -- BY BROKER
Opinion:
You state:
“A client of our firm who is a ‘higher end’ real estate mortgage broker is interested in providing a ‘concierge’ service for such clients. As a part of this service, the broker would like to provide to certain of his clients ‘certificates’ for one hour of complimentary service with several local professionals, including an accountant, an investment advisor, and an attorney.
Under the plan proposed if the borrower borrows a certain minimum, such borrower receives ‘certificates’ for one hour of free time with the professionals mentioned above.
I would receive nothing in exchange for providing the one hour session. There is a potential that the broker’s clients who choose to receive the free one hour could become clients if they have a need for further legal service and if our office is able to provide same. After one hour of session, the fee would be based upon the usual and normal firm billing practices.
I do not provide anything to my broker/client in exchange for permitting him to give his clients ‘certificates’ . . .”
You seek an opinion concerning the propriety of your participating in such a program.
An analogous promotion was held improper by the Iowa Supreme Court in
Committee v. Matias
, 521 NW 2d 704 (Iowa, 1994), citing also
Committee v. Baker
, 492 NW2d 695 (Iowa, 1992).
DR 2-103(B) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers prohibits an Iowa lawyer from compensating or giving anything of value to a person or organization to secure the lawyer’s employment by a client. Authorizing the use of your name in advertising and promotion of the broker constitutes the giving of a thing of value to recommend or secure your employment. See Board Formal Opinion 94-22 (1995).
DR 2-103(C) and DR 2-101(B)(4) govern solicitation by lawyers. The proposed program of advertising through the broker’s efforts violates both these disciplinary rules.
There is no disclosure provided for in the program as is required by DR 2-101(A) in violation of DR 2-105.
Finally, there is no provision authorizing counsel to exercise any discretion in cases which might involve conflict of interest.
For the reasons above enumerated it is the opinion of the Board that it would be improper for an Iowa lawyer to participate in this proposed program.