July 6, 2017
By Karen Rubin
Just last month, we wrote about a North Carolina draft proposal
that would ease the way via its ethics rules for Avvo and other on-line legal services to operate there. Now, after a joint opinion
from three New Jersey Supreme Court committees, the Garden State has turned thumbs down on such law platforms, citing issues including improper fee-sharing and referral fees.
Nix on Avvo, LegalZoom, Rocket Lawyer
The joint opinion bans participation in Avvo’s programs because of the “marketing fees” it collect from lawyers in exchange for participating in two of its offerings: “Avvo Advisor,” in which clients talk to lawyers for 15 minutes for $40, with Avvo keeping $10; and “Avvo Legal Services,” where clients pay a flat fee to Avvo for access to affiliated lawyers, and then Avvo pays the lawyer net of its own fee.
The committees found that this arrangement violates New Jersey’s version of Model Rule 5.4(a)
, barring fee-splitting with non-lawyers, and it mattered not that Avvo called its cut a “marketing fee”: irrespective of its label, said the committees, “lawyers pay a portion of the legal fee earned to a nonlawyer; this is impermissible fee sharing.” In addition, said the committees, these payments signal a “lawyer referral service,” and payment of an “impermissible referral fee” under New Jersey’s Rules 7.2(c)
Icing the cake, the committees also raised a trust account issue, saying that Avvo’s practice of holding the lawyer’s fee until the conclusion of the matter violates the attorney’s duty to maintain a registered trust account and to hold client funds in it until the work is completed.
Avvo wasn’t the only on-line platform tagged — Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom also were placed off-limits to New Jersey lawyers, but for a different reason. While they do not require payment from lawyers to participate, and do not share the clients’ monthly subscription fees with lawyers, Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom are “legal service plans” that have not been registered with or approved by the New Jersey Supreme Court, said the committees. That places them outside the pale, even while not violating the fee-sharing prohibition.
A notice to the bar
from the supreme court’s administrative office accompanied the joint opinion, listing the 46 state-approved legal service plans, including those offered through unions and government agencies.
As we’ve noted
, the ABA’s Futures Commission sees the continuing onslaught of on-line platforms as something that is here to stay. Nonetheless, this New Jersey ethics opinion joins other cautionary or negative ones issued by regulators in Ohio
and South Carolina
. Against that backdrop, North Carolina’s recent consideration of rule changes may appear to be the outlier (although an Oregon state bar association task force also recently recommended
ethics rule amendments that would be friendly to on-line service legal platforms).
Avvo responded to the New Jersey opinion, telling the New Jersey Law Journal
that it is “attempting to address the pressing need for greater consumer access to justice, and we will continue to do so despite this advisory opinion.”
Will market pressure become a tsunami that will eventually sweep legal ethics considerations away? It may take awhile to tell, but until then, look for more ethics opinions to come out with differing views, potentially creating a patchwork of inconsistent state approaches. We’ll be watching with great interest.Content courtesy of The Law for Lawyers Today: Ethics, Professional Responsibility and More blog. Ohio State Bar Association member Karen Rubin is an attorney for Thompson Hine.
Watch an OSBA CLE OnDemand seminar featuring Karen Rubin discussing Five Hot Ethics Issues for Ohio Lawyers.