For those that missed my post earlier this week on the release of the Oregon State Bar Futures Task Force report, you can read that post here and get caught up.
Today, I want to offer some thoughts on one of the three Recommendations made by the Regulatory Committee of the Futures Task Force. It is likely the most important of the Recommendations but certain to be the most controversial as well.
Recommendation 2: Revise Rules of Professional Conduct to Remove Barriers to Innovation.
This recommendation is comprised of four parts. I’ll list them in the order they are presented, even though that is not the order in which I want to discuss them.
2.1 Amend current advertising rules to allow in-person or real-time electronic solicitation, with limited exceptions.
2.2 Amend current fee-sharing rules to allow fee sharing between lawyers and lawyer referral services, with appropriate disclosure to clients.
2.3 Amend current fee-sharing and partnership rules to allow participation by licensed paraprofessionals.
2.4 Clarify that providing access to web-based intelligent software that allows consumers to create custom legal documents is not the practice of law.
Now, that third sub-part creates a spoiler for another of the three Regulatory Committee recommendations – Implement Legal Paraprofessional Licensure. Given the way those programs have played out to date in a number of other jurisdictions, I don’t think that is going to do much to turn any tides, so for now I’m going to pass on discussing it. (If you want to delve into it, you can read all of thoughts of the Futures Task Force on that subject and the entirety of the 90+ page report behind the Executive Summary here.)
The fourth one – making clear that certain software programs that let someone through self-help generate customized legal documents — is a perfectly fine idea and, in this day and age, seems very difficult to argue against. With each passing day, the notion that there are certain legal problems that states cannot allow be served through software programs that do for certain legal problems what tax return software programs do for income taxes seems harder and harder to justify. But, I’m not sure that such a clarification is what is standing between better access to legal services for consumers and where things are today. I tend to think that, in part, because those services already exist and are in pretty wide use because companies already make them available and consumers already use them.
The first one about changes to the advertising rules is most certainly a provision I would support (and have supported in past posts). Virginia has just done something similar with its recent rule revisions. But again, I don’t know that this change would be something that, as a response or solution to trying to improve public access to legal services, will make any real difference. Why do I say that? It is currently not at all very difficult to create an online platform in which it is the consumers that make the first communication effort so that lawyers can respond to it rather than initiate it. As long as that is true, then lawyer advertising rules prohibiting solicitation do not present any barrier at all to getting consumers in need of legal services and lawyers with the time and ability to provide the services together.
That leaves the second subpart. And that is the one where I suggest, respectfully, all the marbles are located for lawyers.
The notion of changing the ethics rules to allow lawyers to share fees in a particular matter with nonlawyers, as long as there is full, appropriate disclosure to the consumer of what is taking place.
The specific proposal Oregon’s Task Force has offered is for its current RPC 5.4(a)(5) that only references bar-sponsored or not-for-profit referral services to be revised to read instead as follows:
(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that
(5) a lawyer may pay the usual charges of a lawyer-referral service, including sharing legal fees with the service, only if:
(i) the lawyer communicates to the client in writing at the outset of the representation the amount of the charge and the manner of its calculation, and
(ii) the total fee for legal services rendered to the client combined with the amount of the charge would not be a clearly excessive fee pursuant to Rule 1.5 if it were solely a fee for legal services, including fees calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer from a referral.
That is an action that would, overnight, make pretty much every technological innovation already available (or even conceivable) viable for lawyers to participate in as a way of delivering legal services to consumers and businesses. It would also allow many existing operators in the legal space to spend less time on trying to come up with workarounds about not being engaged in making referrals in their business model to try to assuage concerns that lawyers who use their platforms will be the subject of disciplinary complaints.
In short, that recommendation appears to me to the one that must be discussed and debated and decided on before any evaluation can be made about what any of the other ones might mean or accomplish.
If Oregon follows through, it seems difficult to speculate that one or more other states won’t follow. And, if the experience of those states shows that full disclosure of the sharing arrangement, plus compliance with the other ethics rules requiring exercise of independent professional judgment and not allowing interference with that judgment, then it will seem very difficult for any jurisdiction to argue against doing the same.
It is inherently a controversial topic because the prohibition against fee sharing with nonlawyers is viewed by many as a bedrock principle of our profession. But — if the underlying premise of that bedrock principle is restated as preserving the independent professional judgment of lawyers from undue influence by others — then the Oregon proposal that would allow fee sharing, require fulsome disclosure to the consumer involved about that arrangement could still readily be expected to serve that bedrock principle and protect consumers while benefiting consumers because – though not highlighted in the Report, RPC 5.4(c) would still be in force as well.
(c) A lawyer shall not permit a person who
recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render
legal services for another to direct or regulate the
lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal
Existing models of the online approach to pairing lawyers and consumers in need of legal services could almost all be placed into this bucket and, thus, lawyers using these services would still have maintain their independent professional judgment and refuse and resist efforts to compromise it.