Ethics Opinions
Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct
Date of Opinion:
03/15/2004
Opinion Number:
04-06
Title:
INCLUSION OF FIRM NAME IN LIST OF PREFERRED PROVIDERS
Opinion:
You have been requested by a relatively small national trade association to allow your firm to be listed in the association’s directory of “preferred providers.” You would have an agreement with the association that its members could consult one of the firm’s registered patent lawyers for an initial one-half hour consultation and written follow-up for a fee of $100. Neither your firm nor its members belong to the association and your firm would not be providing anything of value to the association to induce it to recommend your firm. Other portions of your opinion request make it clear that the formal requirements of DR 2-103(C)(3) and DR 2-103(D) would be met.
Your request is comparable to the one involved in Formal Opinion 97-9. There a non-lawyer organization which represented disability claimants before the Social Security Administration was seeking attorneys to represent, in court, claimants who had been unsuccessful at the administrative level. The Board concluded that:
“This constitutes an agreement to make counsel available to Social Security claimants and is not improper for Iowa lawyers . . . provided it is made clear in writing between you and [the organization] that you may reject any representation requests on the basis of conflict of interest.”
The same caution would be applicable to your situation, since it is possible that the members of the association would have conflicting legal positions among themselves or with your existing clients.
It is thus the opinion of the Board that the relationship you describe would not violate the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
You also question whether, as an organization which must comply with DR 2-103(D)(4), the association would be subject to subparagraphs (f) and (h) thereof. Those requirements are applicable to “legal service plans” such as those provided by companies which sell legal insurance, rather than organizations which merely recommend the use of certain attorneys. Thus, the association would not need to concern itself with those provisions.