Rule revision roundup.

That title is probably a thing somewhere else on the interwebs already, but I’m just lazy enough to not look it up at the moment.

So, it’s been a minute since I have written anything about the progress (or lack thereof) of jurisdictions adopting ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) and since I have written anything (other than indirectly) about whether any progress has been made on adopting the revised, modernized approach to lawyer advertising rules seen in the APRL-inspired, ABA Model Rules revision from last year.

In overlooking those stories in favor of writing about more radical proposed changes to the ethics landscape (some of which have thrown modernized advertising proposals into the stew), I’ve been highlighting a lot of activity in the western United States. But spending a bit of time on these other two topics, gives me a chance to write about happenings in the New England region of the United States.

Specifically, earlier this year (more than five months ago in fact), Maine became the second U.S. jurisdiction to adopt a version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) to seek to address harassment and discrimination related to the practice of law. A neighboring state, Vermont, is the only other state to have done so. Unlike Vermont, however, Maine did not adopt an exact version of the ABA Model Rule. Instead, Maine tweaked it in a few significant ways: (1) the Maine version does not include “marital” or “socioeconomic” status among the grounds for which discrimination is off-limits; (2) the Maine version does not include bar activities or professional social functions within what counts as “related to the practice of law,” and (3) it provides more detailed examples of what amounts to “harassment” and what amounts to “discrimination” under the rule. You may recall that an effort to adopt a modified version of Rule 8.4(g) here in my state of Tennessee failed miserably in 2018.

A bit more recently (only just three months ago), Connecticut became the first state to adopt the ABA revisions to the Model Rules related to lawyer advertising. You may recall that Virginia actually overhauled its rules even before the ABA took action by adopting the original APRL proposal back in 2017. In so doing, Connecticut (for the most part) has stripped its advertising regulations down to just three rules — patterned on ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. Connecticut does still keep a couple of its additional bells and whistles (though it can be hard at first blush to know for certain because they used [brackets] to indicate deletions rather than strike-through text). One deviation that it kept was its 40-day off limits provision for people involved in accidents. Another deviation is that they have a three-year record retention requirement in their version of these rules. A few other deviations made it through as well.

If I could take issue with one choice Connecticut has made (well, technically two — seriously, don’t do the brackets thing ever again), it would be the level of unnecessary detail in the following provision about record retention:

An electronic communication regarding the lawyer’s services shall be copied once every three months on a compact disc or similar technology and kept for three years after its last dissemination.

The problem with this is … well there are several. In 2019, a whole lot of computers don’t even have CD-ROM drives any longer, but also the level of specificity and detail is both micromanagement of an unneeded degree and entirely unlikely to actually accomplish anything. As to micromanagement, just require that an electronic record be retained for the three year period – if they want to store it in a server or in the cloud or wherever, it won’t matter as long as they retain it so that if you ever need to examine it you get it from them.

And also, every three months? Both micromanagement and ineffectual, a lawyer who wants to game that system just changes an electronic communication to be shady in the middle of the three month window and changes it back in time to make the every three-month copy.

Except, of course not really, because the stories about Connecticut’s adoption of the ABA Model Rules on advertising, including this story, all buried the lede — Connecticut still requires lawyers who advertise in public media to file a copy of the advertisement in the form it is distributed with the Statewide Grievance Committee. Sigh. While this is not a “prior restraint,” it is a “prior pain-in-the-ass” (TM, TM, TM, TM) that serves little to no purpose other than imposing additional expenses and red tape on lawyer advertising.

To have both such a filing requirement and a three-year record retention requirement is among the worst sort of “belt and suspenders” arrangements.

In the end, I guess that’s part of why it took so long to actually write this post. Between reading the headlines and being a bit excited and actually studying what Connecticut did, I ended up feeling like I just got nutmegged.

Then I went and slept on Arizona

So … as far as 400th posts go … this should be my best 400th post at this blog.

A while back I warned everyone not to sleep on Arizona when it comes to movement toward radically reshaping the regulatory landscape for lawyers. Apparently, I should practice what I preach because Arizona’s Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services put out its most recent report a month ago, and I haven’t gotten around to reading it or writing about it until now.

You can read the full report and its appendices here, but the headline that matters for today is that the Arizona task force — like Utah before it — has also proposed eliminating altogether Arizona’s Rule 5.4. The report includes a large number of other proposals aimed at improving the delivery of legal services in Arizona but because of the dynamics involved, any serious proposal in any state to throw open the doors to lawyers being able to practice in firms owned by people who are not lawyers will consume all of the oxygen in any given room.

As with all of the reports that are being churned out by various work groups, the Arizona task force report spends a lot of time discussing issues associated with the “justice gap.” The Arizona report does a pretty good, very pithy, job of making the point that many hear but don’t allow to fully marinate when thinking about these issues — on average, real people (as opposed to corporate people) don’t hire lawyers for much of what they need to be hiring lawyers for and, on average, lawyers who work in small firms don’t have enough work to do to make ends meet.

While admittedly blending together data involving disparate time periods, the Arizona report nicely blends together information written about by Professor Henderson and data made available by Clio:

One reason for the current “justice gap” is that the costs of hiring lawyers has increased since the 1970s, and many individual litigants have been forced to forego using professional legal services and either represent themselves or ignore their legal problems. Professor William D. Henderson, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, has noted the alarming decline in legal representation for what he calls the “PeopleLaw sector,” observing that law firms have gradually shifted the core of their client base from individuals to entities. Indeed, while total receipts of United States law firms from 2007 to 2012 rose by $21 billion, receipts from representing individuals declined by almost $7 billion.

[snip]

According to the 2017 Clio Legal Trends Report, the average small firm lawyer bills $260 per hour, performs 2.3 hours billable work a day, bills 1.9 hours of that work, and collects 86% of invoiced fees.11 As a result, the average small firm lawyer earns $422 per day before paying overhead costs. These lawyers are spending roughly the same amount of time looking for legal work and running their business as they are performing legal work for clients.

In reaching the conclusion that Rule 5.4 should simply be scrapped, the report explains that the task force considered and rejected options to just amend Arizona’s Rule 5.4 to do something closer to what the D.C. Rules have long permitted at the entity level and also rejected a small “sandbox” sort of arrangement that would have allowed just applicants who could get approval to run “pilot” project style efforts.

The Arizona report, like Utah’s before it, also has an eye toward creating a mechanism for “entity” regulation. Interestingly, the Arizona report also recommends scrapping Rule 5.7 regarding law-related services in light of the deletion of Rule 5.4’s prohibitions and in favor of amendments to other rules to make clear that the kinds of protections that a rule like Rule 5.7 gave a lawyer a mechanism for not having to afford to customers who were not clients should always be afforded to customers in a post-5.4 world whether clients or not. Also, as indicated would be the case in my earlier post about the goings-on in Arizona, the report does propose dropping altogether the restriction on paying for referrals housed in Rule 7.2(b).

The Arizona report also contains an Opposition Statement, written by a member of the Arizona task force who also happens to sit on the Arizona Court of Appeals. In short, Judge Swann’s Opposition Statement can be summed up as seeing the proposal to scrap Rule 5.4 as a cash grab by the legal profession wearing the cloak of concern with access to justice. Perhaps the strongest point Judge Swann makes is how badly the judicial system itself is in need of reform:

Though the current rules do an excellent job of implementing the “Cadillac” system of trial by jury and cutting-edge discovery techniques, they are completely ineffective at offering a simple path to dispute resolution for self-represented litigants, and they offer no streamlined procedures for small cases. The complexity of the system – indeed the very need for legal services in many cases – is a problem of our own making. I respectfully submit that the Task Force should have directed its attention to systemic reforms, and not to finding ways to direct even more resources to an already-too-resource hungry system. If the court system is too complex for the average citizen, then we must create a simpler and more efficient system – not new industries that will continue to consume the public’s money.

With its built-in “dissent,” the Arizona report really does frame the issues quite appropriately in terms of the nature of the choices that are out there for what must or should or will happen next both in Arizona and elsewhere.

This coming weekend, this general topic will be one of several that Merri Baldwin and I will be speaking on at an event for the PilotLegis Annual Member Conference in Washington, D.C.

Later this year, what has been going on and what comes next will be the focus of the 2019 Ethics Roadshow. We’re calling it “What to Expect When You’re Expecting (Fundamental Changes in the Legal Profession).” I’ll be doing it live in Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville over the course of two weeks in December 2019.

Don’t sleep on Arizona

We’ve (in that creepy royal “we” sort of way) now dedicated two posts to discussing the ATILS proposal coming out of California, but California is certainly not the only state working on reform. In fact, while it may be the biggest, it is not the state offering the boldest reforms, and it also isn’t the fastest in the race by far.

While I did not manage to make my travel work to stay in California for the public hearing on the ATILS proposals, one thing I did learn (along with others in an audience) about it is that before California actually does anything with respect to rule changes there would have to be a second task force put together that would actually craft rule proposals and other specifics.

The state that – at the moment at least – appears to be proposing the boldest reforms when it comes to the future of legal ethics and is doing so at a much quicker pace is Arizona. The Arizona Supreme Court has created its own Task Force on Delivery of Legal Services. You can review as much or as little of the happenings to date of this Task Force by spending some time perusing what is available at this link.

That task force meets again on August 14, 2019 but a review of the minutes of some of their prior meetings will tell you that the Task Force has already approved two revisions that it would be a bit of an understatement to simply call bold:

  • Included within a series of changes to the Arizona advertising rules spurred to some extent by the original APRL proposal for advertising reform and the recent ABA Model Rules revisions, the Arizona Task Force has approved the deletion of RPC 7.2 in its entirety.
  • The Task Force also appears to have approved the deletion of RPC 5.4 altogether (what the various minutes refer to as “Option 3”) so as to open wide the doors to partnerships between lawyers and nonlawyers and financial investment in law firms. In order to make certain that the requirements for lawyers to maintain professional independence are not lost, however, revisions are being made to other rules including comments to RPC 1.7 to highlight the issues.

The Task Force is also moving forward with a proposal to allow nonlawyers to provide certain limited legal services in a fashion that is similar to the concept of LLLTs adopted in a few other jurisdictions.

The Arizona Task Force is also working on evaluating what form of entity regulation may be required or desirable to address the fact that the regulators with jurisdiction to preside over complaints against lawyers and enforce the ethics rules against lawyers would not otherwise have authority over those not licensed to practice law.

So, at the pace Arizona is moving along, it is quite possible that, by as soon as early 2020, there could be a state out there in which there are no limitations on financial investment in law firms (or solo lawyer shops), no limits on what can be accomplished through lawyers partnering with people from other disciplines and backgrounds, and no restrictions on the ability of a lawyer to share compensation received from a client with someone who assisted in delivering that client to that lawyer so that the lawyer could serve the client’s legal needs.

Loosing a big (maybe?) idea into the world.

I had originally promised myself that the articulation of this thought would debut here at my blog. I almost managed it but I raised this notion in the real world lately among some very bright lawyers. So, before I do it again somewhere other than the Internet, I’m following through to put this idea out through this platform for anyone who wishes to chew on it to chew on it.

The only background that I think you need (even if you are not a regular reader of this space) is that there is much activity going on across the country in terms of real efforts at proposed change to the way lawyer ethics rules address certain topics that are largely viewed as barriers to information about the availability of legal services.

Two of the potentially most important, and relatively fast-moving, endeavors are the work of the California Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services, the APRL Future of Lawyering project. But there is movement happening in a number of different states to propose changes to the ethics rules to loosen, if not outright delete, restrictions on monetary and other arrangements between lawyers and people who are not lawyers, that are currently placed in rules patterned after ABA Model Rule 5.4 (generally prohibiting fee-sharing with people who are not lawyers) and 7.2 (restricting the ability of lawyers to make payments to others for referrals to, or recommendations of the lawyer).

It is anticipated that there will be some significant level of outcry over any such proposed changes on the grounds that removal of such rules erodes the protection against lawyers having their exercise of independent professional judgment interfered with. Most every time I engage with anyone on that topic, I find myself making the point that, even without those provisions, the rules still require lawyers to maintain their independent professional judgment.

But, here’s the idea I am letting loose into the world: perhaps we should make that obligation more prominent. At present, outside of any particular context, the only rule that plainly starts down this path is the first sentence of Rule 2.1 which reads: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice.”

Should we, as part of the coming necessary reform of the ethics rules, revise the first rule? Perhaps like this?

Rule 1.1: Competence and Independence

(a) A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

(b) A lawyer representing a client shall not permit any person to direct, regulate, or otherwise interfere with the lawyer’s exercise of independent professional judgment.

If that rule existed, then in all places in which restrictions considered to be barriers to access to legal information but which are justified because of the risk to lawyer independence could be replaced with a pointer back to the lawyer’s obligation under Rule 1.1(b).

New Lunar Year, New Lunar Rule?

Okay, the title is something of a stretch to acknowledge that today marks the beginning of a new lunar year, the Year of the Pig. Nothing about what I have to say relates to the moon or anything Lunar.

But I did want to continue one part of the discussion begun in Las Vegas last month, and truly follow through on my insistence about how what happens in Vegas shouldn’t just stay in Vegas this time, by sharing the text of a proposed new Model Rule that I drafted and that we kicked around during a panel discussion at the APRL Mid-Year Meeting.

The general topic is what to do with the rules, if anything, to address the reality of online lawyer matching services and other similar platforms that are benefiting consumers by helping connect consumers who are willing to pay a certain price point for legal services and lawyers who are willing and able to deliver those services at that price point but that are always in tension with the current ethics rules because of restrictions on lawyers providing compensation for referrals or recommendations and related restrictions on fee sharing.

We have a rule here in Tennessee which I believe to be substantively bad, but the architecture of the rule is pretty good if you change its goals. Sort of like an old house with really good bones but simply god-awful interior decorations. That rule is RPC 7.6 and imposes certain registration requirements and limitations on things denominated as “intermediary organizations.” Long time readers of this blog, might remember this post about how I believed RPC 7.6 applied to Avvo Legal Services back when that was still in operation.

The rule I have drafted as a conversation starter uses the architecture of the Tennessee rule but is designed to provide a more permissive and more flexible approach to the topic.

Implementation of such a rule would likely also require changes to Model Rules 5.4 and 7.2 to make clear that payments to intermediary organizations are not prohibited as fee sharing or prohibited by the restrictions on payment for referrals, and the accompanying Comment would likely need a paragraph to make clear certain things that are not intended to be swept up as an intermediary organization, but carts and horses and all of that.

The draft is posted below, all feedback is most welcome.


Proposed Model Rule 7.7:  Intermediary Organizations
(a)  An intermediary organization is a lawyer referral service, lawyer matching service, or other similar organization which engages in referring consumers of legal services to lawyers or facilitating the creation of attorney-client relationships between consumers of legal services and lawyers willing to provide assistance.


(b)  A lawyer may make a payment to an intermediary organization, including a payment that would be considered sharing of an attorney fee with an intermediary organization, in connection with any referral or facilitation of a relationship with a client as long as:


                (1)  The relationship between the lawyer and intermediary organization is fully disclosed to the client including, if requested by the client, the amount of any payment made by lawyer to the intermediary organization;
                (2)  The cost to the lawyer of any payment to the intermediary organization is not passed on to the client; and
                (3)  The lawyer does not permit the intermediary organization to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering legal services to the client.

What’s happening in Vegas this week?

So glad you asked. Let me tell you, and tell you why, despite the tried and true adage, it needs to not stay in Vegas.

Later this week the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers is having its mid-year meeting in Las Vegas, and we are dedicating our entire programming to a theme: The Future of Lawyering. Under the leadership of former APRL President, Art Lachman, and as I have mentioned in the past, we have launched a Future of Lawyering Committee that is taking a look at potential ways to overhaul certain aspects of the ethics rules.

We will have a day and a half of programming dedicated to that topic. There will be panels discussing each of the following topics:

  • The potential for reform in the 21st Century on issues of cross-border practice
  • How to address “nonlawyer” practice in this modern era.
  • What the practice of law might be like if there was no Model Rule 5.4.
  • The pros and cons of the notion of making having professional liability insurance mandatory for lawyers.
  • What ought to be done, if anything, about changing how law firms are regulated (or not) under the ethics rules
  • Exploring the impact of A.I. on ethical law practice

Oh, and there’s one I left out of that list.

I’m fortunate enough to be involved in one of the panel discussions: “Ethical ‘Evils’ of Referral Fees and For-Profit Referral Services: Time for a Change?” Our panel will be teeing up two possible ideas for things to consider in terms of the restrictions that exist on the ability of lawyers to compensate people and entities who, in one form or fashion or another, refer business to them.

One possibility will be the “radical” notion of what would the rules simply look like if there was no restriction at all in Model Rule 7.2 on providing such compensation? The other possibility will be to look at a proposed new Model Rule 7.7 that yours truly has drafted in the first instance that would seek to permit the wide variety of currently-existing (and recently shut down) on-line matching platforms, and dropping away any concerns about whether such arrangements involve unlawful payments for referrals, as long as the lawyers involved maintain their independent professional judgment, costs of the arrangement aren’t passed on to clients by the lawyer, and the arrangement is transparent to the client.

This combination of programs should make for a very invigorating and enlightening debate on a wide variety of important issues. And, for once, hopefully we will all manage to agree that what happens in Vegas does not just stay in Vegas this time.

Friday follow up: Yesterday’s post

Well, this may be the most rapid Friday follow up in this blog’s history.

A wise and well-connected reader has been in touch to let me know why my analysis yesterday of NYSBA Op. 1160 was all wet. He was, of course, right as I somehow managed to blow past a very important piece of the puzzle regarding the situation NYSBA Op. 1160 was addressing. The inquiring lawyer was actually willing to put together an arrangement that would have made the out-of-state lawyer a part of his “firm.”

I wrote that was not the case prior to discussing the part of the opinion that sought to distinguish prior guidance from about 8 years earlier. Specifically, where I went awry was here:


New York’s 1.5(g) only lets lawyers not in the same law firm (and to be clear the inquirer’s desire to affiliate did not apparently involve actually forming a law firm together) share legal fees if, among other bells and whistles regarding consent and the existence of a writing, the amount of the division of the fee is either proportional to the service performed or (if it is going to be disproportionate in that respect) if both lawyers assume joint responsibility for the work.

The “facts” section of the opinion, however, makes clear that I got that wrong.

The inquirer, an attorney recently admitted to practice in New York, is acquainted with another lawyer. The other lawyer, like the inquirer, resides in New York, but the other attorney is admitted only in another state, not New York, though the latter is admitted to practice in federal courts located in New York. According to the inquirer, the other lawyer is capable of generating business, and the inquirer would like to affiliate with this other lawyer, listing the other lawyer as a partner, associate, counsel, or otherwise, on letterhead showing that the other lawyer is admitted solely in the other state and not New York. The inquirer anticipates that the other lawyer would attend initial meetings with the clients being produced by the other lawyer, but then would not deal with any of the legal work being performed.

I certainly regret my error.

I particularly regret my error because it was part of my thinking when I said at the outset of yesterday’s post that NYSBA Op. 1160 still got the answer right. Now that I actually am paying better attention to the facts, I realize that the opinion absolutely did not get to the correct answer. Instead it was flat wrong.

Rule 1.5(g) wouldn’t be in the mix since that is sharing of fees among lawyers not in the same firm. Likewise, the stated concerns in the opinion about Rule 7.2(a) are irrelevant because that rule surely is not intended to apply to arrangements among lawyers within the same law firm.

There are multi-state law firms all over this nation that have partners who do absolutely nothing on a particular client matter beyond what is described as the role the out-of-state lawyer would have had under the inquiry. Those lawyers most definitely share in the fees of the client when they make rain through something often called “origination credit” by law firms.

Some of those firms most certainly have offices in New York and I just about guarantee that no one would think twice about such internal compensation arrangements in terms of questioning whether they are ethical because all of those lawyers are in the same firm and the decisions they make about how to divide fees are treated as pure business questions of compensation.

The rules in that regard shouldn’t be any different for a firm of two lawyers than for a firm of 2,000.

In a New York (out-of) state of mind…

It has been a minute or two since I’ve stumbled upon an ethics opinion that provides a quick and easy example of how to take an issue, makes it overly complex and in so doing highlight several ongoing problem areas in the regulation of the profession, but ultimately still get to the correct result as to the “yes” or “no” answer to the question addressed.

But along comes New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion No. 1160. This one seems to me to be just such an opinion so let’s chat about it briefly.

Op. 1160 exists to answer the following question:

May a lawyer admitted in New York affiliate and share legal fees with another lawyer, who, while a resident of this State, is not admitted here, with the affiliation intended solely for the purpose of obtaining clients referred by the non-admitted lawyer?

Now, because the question included the desire to share legal fees with the rainmaking lawyer who was living in but not licensed in New York, the opinion could have chosen to cut to the chase based on a relatively straightforward application of New York’s Rule 1.5(g) which largely tracks ABA Model Rule 1.5(e).

New York’s 1.5(g) only lets lawyers not in the same law firm (and to be clear the inquirer’s desire to affiliate did not apparently involve actually forming a law firm together) share legal fees if, among other bells and whistles regarding consent and the existence of a writing, the amount of the division of the fee is either proportional to the service performed or (if it is going to be disproportionate in that respect) if both lawyers assume joint responsibility for the work.

Given that the inquiry transparently admitted that the rainmaker would not be doing anything beyond landing the client and passing the client on to the New York lawyer for handling, it seems pretty clear that Rule 1.5(g) could only be satisfied if the lawyers would be assuming joint responsibility. Given the lack of a New York license for the rainmaker, that would seem an impossible state of affairs because while landing a client might not cross the line into the unauthorized practice of law in New York, agreeing to have joint responsibility for legal work performed in New York for a New York client would be harder to argue involves staying on the right side of the line. Thus, it feels like the NYSBA committee could have wrapped this one up with a bow in a 1 or 2 pages tops.

In fairness, they almost managed to do something like that when they attempted to explain the difference between this situation and an earlier opinion they issued in 2011:

We examined Rule 1.5(g) in N.Y. State 864 (2011), in which the inquirer wished to accept a referral from an out-of-state lawyer in a personal injury matter. The injury occurred in New York and the referring lawyer proposed that, in the particular matter at issue, the in-state lawyer would “handle” the matter and pay the referring lawyer a portion of any recovery. We endorsed the proposal subject to compliance with Rule 1.5(g)…. Although we have declined to delineate the precise contours of “joint responsibility” under this Rule …, we have made clear that the mere cultivation of client relationships does not qualify as “services performed” by the referring lawyer… Thus, the inquirer’s contemplated action would violate Rule 7.2(a) unless it could be said that the inquirer is ethically permitted to be affiliated with the out-of-state lawyer in the circumstances presented.

Where the committee goes awry is that last sentence which is pretty viciously circular.

It seems like it should have said: Thus, the inquirer’s contemplated action would violate Rule 7.2(a) unless it could be said that the out-of-state lawyer was willing to undertake “joint responsibility” for the matter and if doing so would not constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

They did not write it that way, however. And, as a result, the rest of the pieces of the opinion exist all of which for rhetorical purposes treat the rainmaker, despite being a lawyer licensed in at least one jurisdiction, as a “non lawyer.” And much of which bears the hallmarks of heavy-handedness that often arise in ethics opinions construing restrictions on (1) the ability of lawyers to offer compensation to those who refer them work, (2) the ability of lawyers to ask for work from clients; and (3) the ability of lawyers to practice law remotely.

You can read the full opinion here.

The end of Avvo Legal Services should not be the end of the discussion.

A lot of the time, saying something seemed “inevitable,” only makes sense to say when you’ve had the benefit of hindsight.  At some level, every outcome can be justified as having been inevitable when you are doing the justifying after the event has already happened.

I say that to make clear that I understand the problem with making the following assertion:  As soon as the news came out that the same company that owned Martindale Hubbell was buying Avvo, it seemed inevitable that Avvo Legal Services was on the road to being scrapped/shut down.

Further, if the mere news that a much larger, much more “conservative” company was taking over didn’t signal for you how things would shake out ( a company that also owned other significant legal marketing products that might “compete” with or be intended to compete with Avvo), the news that quickly followed — all the key people at Avvo (the founder and CEO, the General Counsel, the marketing person who was to some extent the “face” of Avvo) were cashing out and moving on — should have left no doubt that large change was coming.

This week Internet Brands, that new owner of Avvo, let the cat out of the bag in perhaps the weirdest way possible that Avvo Legal Services would be shut down.  As this ABA Journal article reports, an unauthorized practice of law committee of the North Carolina Bar had sent an inquiry letter, apparently, to continue or begin an evaluation of whether Avvo Legal Services somehow involved the unauthorized practice of law.

In response, the General Counsel of Internet Brands sent the North Carolina committee a letter advising that Avvo Legal Services was going to be shut down imminently.  That’s a weird way for the news to come out because, of all the problems that Avvo Legal Services’s business model had, unauthorized practice of law simply wasn’t one.

If you follow this space, then you are likely well-versed on what those problems were: the business-model required participating lawyers to take on all of the risk that participation would involve them in one or more violations of their state’s ethics rules, including rules against sharing fees with people who aren’t lawyers or paying someone something of a value for a referral of legal work.

The end of Avvo Legal Services, however, should not mean that the legal profession should stop efforts to determine how the ethics rules need to be revised in order to facilitate the existence of things similar to Avvo Legal Services.  Consumers who have grown accustomed to using that kind of platform to get assistance with their legal needs are just going to look around the Internet for a new option.

One of the folks behind Avvo has been promoting the existence of one such new option pretty vigorously of late.  But there are all kinds of others out there and likely new ones waiting in the wings.  Very few, if any, of them can truly be described as providing any sort of service that is likely to hurt consumers seeking legal services.  Real-world transactions have demonstrated that the kind of approach to pairing consumers in need of help with lawyers with time on their hands and a willingness to assist at a desirable price point can take place without hurting the consumers of legal services.  The fact that those business models are currently prohibited by the ethics rules simply means that slavish devotion to those prohibitions based on theoretical concerns rather than how things truly are is an untenable position for the profession to try to maintain.

I still think a big choice has to be made in our profession, and I continue to think that choice is clear.

Time to choose: are you Illinois or New Jersey?

Blackhawks or Devils?

Bulls or Nets?

Barack Obama or Chris Christie?

Northwestern or Rutgers?

Kanye or Wu-Tang Clan?

Wilco or Bruce Springsteen?

Some of those are easy calls; some are harder decisions to make.  What they all have in common though is that one comes out of Illinois and the other comes out of New Jersey.

As to the future of legal ethics, we now face a similar decision that has to be made.  Are you down with what is coming out of Illinois or will you choose what New Jersey has to offer?

I’ll explain further.  Avid readers of this space will be well aware that I have devoted quite a few bits and bytes to discussions of the evolving market for legal services and the push/pull in place between companies that push the envelope of what lawyers can do under existing ethics rules and various ethics opinions that have been released explaining how lawyers can or cannot do business with such companies.  In order to avoid spamming this post with about 10-15 links to previous posts of mine, I’ll just say that if you are just getting here for the first time (welcome!), then look through the older posts for ones with the tag “Future of Legal Ethics” and you are sure to find one pretty quickly that discusses these topics.

Within the last couple of weeks, these have been the two developments that pretty nicely identify the choice that lawyers (and the legal profession) face.

First there is the Illinois development.  The Illinois ARDC — which is Illinois’s regulatory and disciplinary agency [Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee] — issued a more than 100-page report making the case for why the ethics rules need to be overhauled to permit lawyers to ethically participate in “lawyer-matching services” such as Avvo and other platforms but that, along with such changes, there need to be regulations adopted to impose certain requirements on such companies and platforms for lawyers to be able to participate.

In large part, much of what Illinois describes sounds a bit like a subtle variation on RPC 7.6 in Tennessee that I have written about in the past.  But it still also requires fundamental changes to other pieces of the ethics rules addressing financial arrangements between lawyers and those not licensed to practice law.

By way of juxtaposition, the New Jersey Supreme Court, asked to review a joint opinion issued by its legal ethics regulatory body, its advertising regulatory body, and its body focused on UPL aligned with other jurisdictions that have issued ethics opinions prohibiting lawyers from participating in programs like Avvo Legal Services, declined to review the opinion or otherwise disagree with its conclusions.

For my part, I think the choice is an easy one to make.

But, the most important thing for today (IMO) is for people to understand that there really is not a middle ground position here — you are going to have to make a choice and you are going to have to decide that you are either on board with the Illinois approach or the New Jersey approach to this topic.

Choose wisely.