Ala. R. Prof'l. Cond. 7.3
Ala. R. Prof'l. Cond. 7.3
COMMENT
"Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rule 7.3(b)(1), effective February 19, 2009, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from ___ So.2d."
There is a potential for abuse inherent in direct solicitation by a lawyer in person or by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile transmission of prospective clients known to need legal services. Direct solicitation subjects the non-lawyer to the private importuning of a trained advocate, in a direct interpersonal encounter. A prospective client often feels overwhelmed by the situation giving rise to the need for legal services and may have an impaired capacity for reason, judgment, and protective self-interest. Furthermore, the lawyer seeking to be retained is faced with a conflict stemming from the lawyer's own interest, which may color the advice and representation offered the vulnerable prospect.
The situation is therefore fraught with the possibility of undue influence, intimidation, and overreaching. This potential for abuse inherent in direct solicitation of prospective clients justifies some restrictions, particularly since the advertising permitted under Rule 7.2 offers an alternative means of communicating necessary information to those who may be in need of legal services. Advertising makes it possible for a prospective client to be informed about the need for legal services, and about the qualifications of available lawyers and law firms, without subjecting the prospective client to direct personal persuasion that may overwhelm the client's judgment.
The use of general advertising, rather than direct private contact, to transmit information from lawyer to prospective client will help to assure that the information flows cleanly as well as freely. Advertising is in the public view and thus subject to scrutiny by those who know the lawyer. This informal review is likely to help guard against statements and claims that might constitute false or misleading communications in violation of Rule 7.1. Direct, private communications from a lawyer to a prospective client are not subject to such third-person scrutiny and consequently are much more likely to approach (and occasionally cross) the line between accurate representations and those that are false and misleading.
Direct written communication seeking employment by specific prospective clients generally presents less potential for abuse or overreaching than in-person solicitation and is therefore not prohibited for most types of legal matters, but is subject to reasonable restrictions, as set forth in this rule, designed to minimize or preclude abuse and overreaching and to ensure the lawyer's accountability if abuse should occur. This rule allows targeted mail solicitation of potential plaintiffs or claimants in personal injury and wrongful death causes of action or other causes of action that relate to an accident, disaster, death, or injury, but only if the communication is not mailed until thirty (30) days after the incident. This restriction is reasonably required by the sensitized state of the potential clients, who may be either injured or grieving over the loss of a family member, and the abuses that experience has shown can exist in this type of solicitation.
Common examples of written communications that must meet the requirements of subparagraph (b) of this rule are direct mail solicitation sent to individuals or groups selected because they share common characteristics, e.g., persons named in traffic accident reports or notices of foreclosure. Communications not ordinarily sent on an unsolicited basis to prospective clients are not covered by this rule. Also not covered by this rule are responses by lawyers and law firms to requests for information from a prospective client or newsletters or brochures published for clients, former clients, those requesting it, or those whom the lawyer or law firm has a familial or current or prior professional relationship.
Letters of solicitation and the envelopes in which they are mailed should be clearly marked 'Advertisement.' This will avoid the perception by the recipient that there is a need to open the envelope because it is from a lawyer or law firm, when the envelope contains only a solicitation for legal services. With the envelopes and letters clearly marked 'Advertisement,' the recipient can choose to read the solicitation or not to read it, without fear of legal repercussions.
In addition, the lawyer or law firm sending the letter of solicitation shall reveal the source of information used to determine that the recipient has a potential legal problem. Disclosure of the source will help the recipient to understand the extent of knowledge the lawyer or law firm has regarding the recipient's particular situation and will avoid misleading the recipient into believing that the lawyer has particularized knowledge about the recipient's matter if the lawyer does not.
General mailings to persons not known to need legal services, as well as mailings targeted to specific persons or potential clients, are permitted by this rule. However, these mailings constitute advertisement and are thus subject to the requirements of Rule 7.2 concerning delivery of copies to the general counsel, record keeping, inclusion of a disclaimer, and performance of the services offered at the advertised fee.
This Rule would not prohibit a lawyer from contacting representatives of organizations or groups that may be interested in establishing a group or prepaid legal plan for its members, insureds, beneficiaries, or other third parties for the purpose of informing such entities of the availability of and details concerning the plan or arrangement that the lawyer or the law firm is willing to offer. This form of communication is not directed to a specific prospective client known to need legal services related to a particular matter. Rather, it is usually addressed to an individual acting in a fiduciary capacity seeking a supplier of legal services for others who may, if they choose, become prospective clients of the lawyer. Under these circumstances, the activity which the lawyer undertakes in communicating with such representatives and the type of information transmitted to the individual are functionally similar to and serve the same purpose as advertising permitted under Rule 7.2.
COMPARISON WITH FORMER ALABAMA CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
There is no comparable rule in the former Alabama Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 7.3, before its amendment effective May 1, 1996, was a direct counterpart to Temporary DR 2-103, which was substantially adopted from Model Rule 7.3. The amendment, effective May 1, 1996, changed the rule substantially from what was Temporary DR 2-103.
Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rule 7.3(b)(1), effective February 19, 2009, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from 999 So.2d.
.