Source: https://www.nycbar.org/member-and-career-services/ethics/frequently-asked-legal-ethics-questions
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:30:59+00:00

Document:
A review of the inquiries made to the Committee’s Ethics Hotline has shown that certain legal ethics questions occur more often than others. Accordingly, the Committee has prepared a set of answers to frequently asked questions for the general edification of the Bar. The answers provide only an introduction to the topics discussed. Before taking any action, a lawyer should conduct more extensive research, consulting at a minimum relevant court decisions, the Committee’s formal opinions, and the opinions of the Professional Ethics Committees of the New York State Bar Association, the New York County Lawyers' Association, and the Nassau County Bar Association.
Q. May a lawyer simultaneously represent multiple clients with conflicting interests?
A. Rule 1.7 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rules"), 22 N.Y.C.R.R §1200.7, governs the answer to this question.
Rule 1.7(a) provides in pertinent part that except as permitted by Rule 1.7(b) (discussed below), “a lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that . . . the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests.” Rule 1.7(a)(1).
the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal. . . .
Rule 1.7(b). If these conditions are satisfied, a lawyer may simultaneously represent clients notwithstanding a conflict only if “each affected client gives informed consent confirmed in writing.” Rule 1.7(b)(4).
Absent consent, when a lawyer represents a client in one matter, he may not be adverse to that client in a different matter, even if the two matters are wholly unrelated. See Rule 1.7, Cmt. .
Rule 1.8 provides an additional caveat for attorneys involved in representing multiple clients simultaneously. “A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, absent court approval, unless each client gives informed consent in a writing signed by the client.” Rule 1.8(g). See also N.Y. City 2009-6 (before binding multiple clients to an aggregate settlement, a lawyer has a nonwaivable obligation to obtain the informed consent of every affected client).
With respect to aggregate settlements, Rule 1.8 (g) further provides that informed client consent requires disclosure to each client of “the existence and nature of all the claims involved and of the participation of each person in the settlement.” In addition, Rule 1.8 requires that consent to the aggregate settlement be “in a writing signed by the client.” In contrast, under Rule 1.7, the requisite consent need only be “confirmed in writing,” as defined by Rule 1.0(e).
“Informed consent” denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated information adequate for the person to make an informed decision, and after the lawyer has adequately explained to the person the material risks of the proposed course of conduct and reasonably available alternatives.
The prohibition against conflicts in the representation of multiple clients furthers a number of salutary objectives. As explained by the New York Court of Appeals, the prohibition safeguard[s] against not only violation of the duty of loyalty owed the client, but also against abuse of the adversary system and resulting harm to the public at large.
Greene v. Greene, 47 N.Y.2d 447, 451 (1979) (citations omitted).
Before representing multiple clients with actual or potentially conflicting interests, a lawyer must adequately explain to each client the implications of the common representation and otherwise provide information sufficient to permit each client to appreciate the significance of the potential conflict and its possible effect on the attorney’s ability to exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of the clients. The lawyer should accept or continue employment only if each client consents to the representation. See Anderson v. Nassau County Dep't of Corrections, 376 F. Supp. 2d 294, 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding that an attorney has an affirmative obligation to disclose and explain a conflict and to obtain consent). The sophistication of the client is a factor in determining the effectiveness of the client’s consent. See N.Y. City 2001-2 (“A client represented by other counsel or in house counsel in connection with the waiver may more readily comprehend the possible effects on loyalty and confidentiality of the simultaneous adverse representation. To be sure, sophisticated corporate and institutional clients can consent to conflicts which might be non-consentable in cases involving unsophisticated lay clients who are not represented by independent counsel in connection with the consent.").
A lawyer's possession of confidential information of one client that may be relevant to a matter the lawyer is handling for another client does not automatically create a conflict of interest. The existence or absence of a conflict will depend on whether the lawyer is able to avoid using one client’s confidential information in the representation of another client and whether possession of that information may reasonably affect the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in the representation of the other client. See N.Y. City 2005-2.
Q. When may a lawyer represent a client with interests adverse to those of a former client?
A. Successive representation is permitted when there is no conflict between the interests of the former and current clients (under Rule 1.9) or when written waiver of the conflict has been obtained. Under Rule 1.9, all conflicts arising out of successive adverse representation may be waived by “informed consent, confirmed in writing” by the former client. But see N.Y. State 829 (oral waivers obtained before April 1, 2009 need not subsequently be confirmed in writing).
Where successive representation is permitted, Rule 1.9 requires attorneys to refrain from disclosing the confidences of their former clients or otherwise using them to the disadvantage of those clients. The following discussion pertains to lawyers in private practice only. Rule 1.11 governs conflicts involving government lawyers and should be consulted for guidance in addressing conflicts in those circumstances.
In some instances, there may be a threshold question of whether there has been a prior representation, i.e., whether the attorney “formerly represented” a person as a client in an earlier matter. SeeWorld Hill Ltd. v. Saar, No. 116916/07, 2009 NY Slip Op. 52289U, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 6, 2009) (finding no conflict under 1.9 where no attorney-client relationship was formed in the prior, allegedly substantially related matter). In World Hill, the court denied a disqualification motion based on an alleged prior representation, holding that “[i]t is well settled that ‘[t]o determine whether an attorney-client relationship exists, a court must consider the parties’ actions. An attorney-client relationship is established when there is an explicit undertaking to perform a specific task. While the existence of the relationship is not dependent upon the payment of a fee or an explicit agreement, a party cannot create the relationship based on his or her own beliefs or actions'." Id. at *3 (quoting Pelligrino v. Oppenheimer & Co., 49 A.D.3d 94, 99 (1st Dep't 2008)) (second alteration in original).
The second inquiry is whether the current and prior representations involve the same or a “substantially related matter.” See Rule 1.9(a), 1.9(b). The comments to Rule 1.9 explain that “[m]atters are substantially related” if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if, under the circumstances, a reasonable lawyer would conclude that there is otherwise a substantial risk that confidential factual information that would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client’s position in the subsequent matter.See Rule 1.9, Comment . The comments further note that the passage of time may be relevant in determining whether matters are substantially related, as “[i]nformation acquired in a prior representation may have been rendered obsolete.” Id. Moreover, information that has been disclosed to the public or other adverse parties “ordinarily will not be disqualifying.” Where a client is an organization, “knowledge of specific facts . . . relevant to the matter in question” will generally preclude representation, while “general knowledge of the client’s policies and practices” will not. Id.
A third consideration is whether the former client’s “interests are materially adverse” to those of the prospective client. Rule 1.9(a), 1.9(b)(1). This is also a fact-specific inquiry. See e.g., Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123 (1989) (holding that interests of acquired corporation were materially adverse to interests of selling shareholder in a post-sale dispute regarding the corporation's pre-sale environmental compliance).
There is no prohibition or restriction on successive adverse representations involving unrelated matters or related matters where the interests of the former and current clients are not materially adverse.
If both the “substantially related” and “materially adverse” prongs are satisfied, a lawyer must next consider the extent of her involvement or connection to the prior matter. Pursuant to Rule 1.9(a), where the lawyer herself has represented the former client, she may not take on the new matter unless the former client “gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.” Moreover, pursuant to Rule 1.10, Imputation of Conflicts of Interest, no lawyer associated with the conflicted lawyer may accept the engagement. Rule 1.10(a) ([w]hile lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rule . . . 1.9, except as otherwise provided therein”).
To obtain the informed consent required by the rule, a lawyer must adequately explain to the former client "the material risks of the proposed course of conduct and reasonably available alternatives.” Rule 1.0(j).
(iii) a statement by the person made on the record of any proceeding before a tribunal.
Rule 1.0(e). A “writing” under the rules denotes a “tangible or electronic record of a communication” and broadly includes “handwriting, typewriting, printing photocopying, photography, audio or video recording and email.” Rule 1.0(x).
Conflict issues involving successive adverse representation often arise after a lawyer switches firms and her prior law firm represented a client adverse to a current or prospective client of her new firm.
This situation requires examination of the lawyer’s involvement in the prior law firm’s representation of the former client in order to determine whether the former client’s informed consent is necessary to permit the lawyer and/or her new firm to continue representing a current client or to undertake the representation of a new client. See Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. 518 F.2d 751, 756 (2d Cir. 1975) ( construing the predecessor rule; the test differentiates between "lawyers who become heavily involved in the facts of a particular matter and those who enter briefly on the periphery for a limited and specific purpose relating solely to legal questions.").
Lawyer’s obligations if representation is permitted and undertaken.
Where a successive representation is permitted, certain obligations to a former client remain. Under Rule 1.9(c)(2), a lawyer may not reveal confidential information of the former client protected by Rule 1.6 except as the Rules otherwise permit or require with respect to a current client.
consists of information gained during or relating to the representation of a client, whatever its source, that is (a) protected by the attorney-client privilege, (b) likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed, or (c) information that the client has requested to be kept confidential.
use confidential information of the former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client, except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a current client or when the information has become generally known.
Rule 1.9(c)(1) (emphasis added.) See alsoJamaica Pub. Serv. Co. v. AIU Ins. Co., 92 N.Y.2d 631, 637-38 (1998) (noting exception to client information that is generally or publicly known under former DR 5-108(A)(1).) The prohibition against use of confidential information remains fully applicable even if the lawyer is able to use the information without disclosing it to others.
Q. When a client fails to pay its legal bills, may a lawyer withdraw from the representation, and if so, how? Can the lawyer retain the file until the bills are paid? Even after bills are settled, may a lawyer refuse the client access to portions of the file?
A. General summary. A lawyer generally may withdraw from the representation when the client fails to pay the lawyer's fees, but must take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client. See Rule 1.16(c)(5), (e). In litigation proceedings, court rules commonly require consent of court before withdrawing. The exercise of retaining liens has been approved as an ethical matter, but their precise contours are questions of law, not ethical command. The client is presumptively afforded full access to the attorney’s entire file, with narrow exceptions.
Except as stated in paragraph (d), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client when . . .
(5) the client deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation to the lawyer as to expenses or fees. . .
Rule 1.16 (c)(5). The requirement that the client "deliberately disregard" an obligation to pay fees and expenses means that the failure must have been conscious, not inadvertent, and not de minimis in either amount or duration. See N.Y. State 598 (1989). In that connection, a number of courts and ethics opinions have found that prior to withdrawal for nonpayment of fees, a lawyer first must ask the client to honor her payment obligations and warn the client that the lawyer will withdraw unless the fees are paid. See ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct 31:1108 (2006); see also N.Y. State 598 (1989) (attorney must provide "clear notice to the client of the attorney's desire to withdraw"). In addition, when a client has a bona fide dispute with her lawyer regarding the amount of the fees due and owing, some courts have suggested that the dispute should not be regarded as a deliberate disregard of the client's obligations. See Dar v. Nadel & Assocs., P.C., 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51390(U), at *4 (N.Y.City Civ. Ct. Kings County No. 3379/04, 2004), available at 2004 WL 2624612 (“[d]isputing the amount owed is not a refusal to pay”).
upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps, to the extent reasonably practicable, to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled, promptly refunding any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned and complying with applicable laws and rules.
Rule 1.16(e). Further, in litigation matters, permission of court is required as a matter of course under applicable rules of procedure, seee.g., N.Y. C.P.L.R. 321(b), which are incorporated into the Rules. See Rule 1.16(d) ("If permission for withdrawal from employment is required by the rules of a tribunal, a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment in a matter before that tribunal without its permission. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.").
Retaining liens . Retaining liens provide certain rights to retain, until the lawyer's fees and expenses are paid, a client's papers, money, and other property that have come into the lawyer's possession in the course of the lawyer's professional employment. Ethics opinions have approved the exercise of a retaining lien to the extent such a lien is permitted by law. See, e.g.,N.Y. City 82-74 (file); N.Y. State 567 (1984) (money); N.Y. County 678 (general but restricted right); Nassau County 90-5 (wills while client is alive); see also Rule 1.15(c)(4) (requiring return of property "that the client … is entitled to receive"); Rule 1.8(i)(1) (charging liens permitted).
“Because the retaining lien is such a powerful weapon, both ethics committees and courts have placed limitations on the circumstances in which it can be exercised.” N.Y. County 678; see also Shoe Show, Inc. v. Launzel, No. 92-CV-2794, 1993 WL 150322, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 3, 1993) (“An exception to the attorney's right to a retaining lien may be found, in the court's discretion, where the client has made a clear showing of: (1) a need for the documents, (2) prejudice that would result from the denial of access to the papers, and (3) inability to pay the legal fees or post a reasonable bond”). The precise scope of a lawyer's right to assert a retaining lien presents questions of law. See N.Y. City 82-74. See generally ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct 41:2102-2111 (1992); Rotker v. Rotker, 195 Misc. 2d 768, (N.Y.Sup. Ct., Westchester County 2003).
Counsel retained by insurance company . A number of courts have held that where counsel is retained by the client's insurance carrier and the carrier fails to pay counsel, counsel's rights to withdraw and exercise a retaining lien may be more limited than when the client alone is responsible for, but does not pay, the attorney's fees. SeeDennis v. Young, 106 A.D. 2d 762, 763 (3d Dept. 1984) (counsel could not withdraw at least until dispute over coverage decided);Turzio v. Ravenhall, 34 Misc. 2d 17, 18 (N.Y. City Ct., Kings County. 1962) (counsel could not exercise retaining lien). But see Cullen v. Olins Leasing, Inc., 91 A.D. 2d 537, 537 (1st Dept. 1982) (insurance company insolvent, lawyer permitted to withdraw).
Scope of Retention of Legal Files . Upon termination of the attorney-client relationship, where no claim for unpaid legal fees is outstanding, the client is presumptively accorded full access to the entire client file, with narrow exceptions. See Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, L.L.P., 91 N.Y.2d 30, 34 (1997). In Sage Realty, the Court of Appeals held that (1) counsel’s former client is entitled to inspect and copy any documents which relate to the representation and are in counsel’s possession, absent “substantial grounds” for counsel to refuse access (abrogating Zackiva Commcn's Corp. v. Milberg Weiss Bershard Specthrie & Lerach, 223 A.D.2d 417, (1st Dep't 1996)); (2) a law firm is not required to disclose documents that might violate a duty of nondisclosure owed to a third party, or otherwise imposed by law, or firm documents intended for internal law office review and use; and (3) generally, unless the law firm has already been paid for assemblage and delivery of documents to the client, performing that function is properly chargeable to the client.
Q. Under what circumstances may a lawyer or law firm enter into an “of counsel” relationship with another lawyer or law firm?
A. Under the Rules, lawyers or law firms may hold themselves out as “of counsel” to another lawyer or law firm, provided: (1) they have “a continuing relationship with [that] lawyer or law firm, other than as a partner or associate” (Rule 7.5(a)(4)); and (2) the use of the “of counsel” title is not false or misleading in other respects. (Rule 7.2, cmt.  (“In order to avoid the possibility of misleading persons with whom a lawyer deals, a lawyer should be scrupulous in the representation of professional status.”)).
A “continuing relationship” is regularly defined as a “close, regular, personal relationship.” See N.Y. City Formal Op. 1996-8; ABA Formal Op. 90-357 (holding that use of “the title ‘of counsel,’ or variants of that title, in identifying the relationship of a lawyer or firm with another lawyer or firm is permissible as long as the relationship between the two is a close, regular, personal relationship and the use of the title is not otherwise false or misleading”); see also N.Y. State Ethics Op. 793 (2006) (of counsel lawyer must be “available to the firm for consultation and advice on a regular and continuing basis”). An “of counsel” relationship must be more than “a relationship involving only occasional collaborative efforts among otherwise unrelated lawyers or firms.” ABA Formal Op. 90-357.
whether the lawyer’s relationship with the firm is extremely limited, such a relationship that involves only the referral of business or occasional consulting.
N.Y. City Formal Op. 2013-3. Because “of counsel” relationships vary significantly from firm to firm, the fact that some of these elements are not present in a particular relationship (or that other elements not listed above are present) does not necessarily make the of counsel designation inappropriate. See id.; N.Y. State Ethics Op. 936 (2012) (no “fixed set of a few factors will answer the question whether a relationship is sufficiently close, regular and personal as to justify any form of ‘counsel’ designation”). Conversely, the existence of a particular factor or combination of factors does not conclusively determine that an “of counsel” relationship is appropriate. See N.Y. City Formal Op. 2013-1; N.Y. City Formal Op. 1995-8 (“sharing of space and availability for consultation on a regular basis are strongly indicative of the requisite closeness of relationship, but not conclusive absent closeness, regularity and a personal dimension in the relationship”).
In addition, as noted above, the “of counsel” title must not be false or misleading in other respects. See N.Y. City Formal Op. 2013-3. In deciding whether to use the “of counsel” title, lawyers and law firms should give due consideration to the policies underlying the relevant ethics opinions and rules – namely to protect the public from being misled about the relationship between the law firm and the of counsel attorney. See id.; N.Y. State Ethics Op. 955 (2012) (“Ethics committees have set forth criteria for use of particular designations such as ‘of counsel’ so as to avoid the risk of misleading the public.”). By using the “of counsel” designation, both the law firm and the lawyer are conveying to the public that the lawyer’s continuing relationship with the firm is close, regular, and personal. N.Y. City Formal Op. 2013-3; N.Y. State Ethics Op. 793. Where these characteristics are absent, the public – including potential clients – may be misled or harmed. N.Y. Formal Op. 2013-3.
Q. Is an “of counsel” attorney required to be compensated by any particular method?
No. The method of compensation “is not relevant” to whether a lawyer may be designated as "of counsel.” N.Y. City Formal Op. 1996-8. An attorney who is paid “per diem” and “does not work exclusively for the firm” may be designated as “of counsel” to the firm. Id.
Q. May a law firm be “of counsel” to another law firm or lawyer?
A. Yes. See Rule 7.5(a)(4) (“a lawyer or law firm may be designated ‘Of Counsel’”); N.Y. City Formal Op. 1995-8; ABA Formal Op. 90-357; see also N.Y. State Ethics Op. 793 (2006) (shown in hypothetical).
Q. May a lawyer be “of counsel” to more than one law firm at the same time?
A. Yes. See ABA Formal Op. 90-357; see also N.Y. City Formal Op. 1996-8; N.Y. State Ethics Op. 793 (2006). There is, however, “some point at which the number of relationships would be too great for any of them to have the necessary qualities of closeness and regularity, and that number may not be much beyond two.” ABA Formal Op. 90-357; accord N.Y. State Ethics Op. 793 n.1 (2006); N.Y. City Formal Op. 1996-8.
Q. May a partner of one law firm simultaneously be “of counsel” to another law firm?
A. Yes, although it is “not usual, for a lawyer to satisfy the requirements to serve as both a partner in one firm and ‘of counsel’ to another.” See N.Y. City Formal Op. 1995-9. The Committee has opined that these requirements is likely satisfied when, for tax reasons, an attorney who is based in Washington, D.C. and is partner in a New York law firm changes his status to become “of counsel” to the New York firm while simultaneously becoming a partner in a newly-formed D.C. partnership with those same New York partners. Id.
Q. May a New York law firm designate as “of counsel” a New York lawyer who resides and practices overseas?
A. A New York law firm may designate as “of counsel” a lawyer who is licensed to practice law in New York but resides and practices law mainly in a foreign country provided that the “of counsel” designation satisfies three conditions. See N.Y. City Formal Op. 2013-3.
First, the “of counsel” lawyer must have a “continuing relationship” with the law firm as required by Rule 7.5(a)(4). Id.; see also N.Y. City Formal Op. 1996-8 (an “of counsel” attorney must have a “close, continuing, regular and personal” relationship with the law firm). The criteria for assessing whether a “continuing relationship” exists are discussed in the first FAQ above.
Second, the use of the “of counsel” title must not be false or misleading in other respects. N.Y. City Formal Op. 2013-3; see also Rule 7.5, Cmt.  (“In order to avoid the possibility of misleading persons with whom a lawyer deals, a lawyer should be scrupulous in the representation of professional status.”). The policies behind this requirement are discussed in the first FAQ above.
Third, the “of counsel” lawyer’s practice must not constitute the unauthorized practice of law in the foreign country. N.Y. City Formal Op. 2013-3; see also Rule 5.5(b) (“A lawyer shall not aid a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law”). The question of whether an attorney’s conduct constitutes the unauthorized practice of law is an issue of substantive law and, thus, beyond the scope of the Committee’s jurisdiction.
Q. How are conflicts imputed among “of counsel” lawyers and law firms?
A. In any “of counsel” relationship, conflicts are ordinarily imputed to and through the “of counsel” lawyer or law firm to the other lawyer or law firm. See N.Y. State Ethics Op. 793 (2006); N.Y. City Formal Op. 1996-8; see also N.Y. State Ethics Op. 773 (2004) (if lawyer serving on municipal board cannot appear before the board, a law firm to which the lawyer is “of counsel” is also barred); cf. Adv. Comm. Jud. Ethics 06-22 (if judge’s personal attorney is “of counsel” to a law firm, the judge must also exercise recusal when members of the law firm appear before the judge “[i]f it is a continuing counsel relationship, evidenced, for example, by a shared letterhead and other indicia, rather than merely a retainer interest in occasional, discrete, separate cases”).
Where a lawyer has an “of counsel” relationship with three law firms, conflicts of one firm are imputed to the other two. See ABA Formal Op. 90-357 (“[T]he effect of two or more firms sharing an of counsel lawyer is to make them all effectively a single firm, for purposes of attribution of disqualifications.”); see also Nemet v. Nemet, 112 A.D.2d 359, 360 (2d Dep’t 1985) (upholding disqualification based on the appearance of impropriety “evident in the ‘of counsel’ arrangement between these attorneys”); N.Y. City Formal Op. 2000-4 (extending the “of counsel” analysis to “affiliated” firms).
Q. Is a law firm permitted refer to its “of counsel” lawyers on professional notices, letterheads and signs?
A. Yes, subject to the usual restrictions on lawyer speech. See Rule 7.5(a)(4); N.Y. County Ethics Op. 727 (1999) (law firm may indicate on its letterhead that a lawyer “of counsel” to the firm is a retired judge, as long as the representation is truthful, not misleading, and does not suggest that the firm has improper influence over a tribunal, legislative body, or public official); see generally Rules 7.1-7.5.
Q. Is a law firm required refer to its “of counsel” lawyers on professional notices, letterheads and signs?
No. An “of counsel” attorney’s name need not be listed on firm letterhead, and as long as the attorney’s name does not so appear, there is no ethical requirement that the attorney’s “of counsel” status be mentioned in connection with the attorney’s signature. See N.Y. County Ethics Op. 662 (1984). However, if the “of counsel” attorney’s name does appear on firm letterhead, the nature of the relationship should be disclosed. Id.
A business card need not indicate an attorney’s “of counsel” status. See N.Y. County Ethics Op. 682 (1990).
Q. How are “of counsel” lawyers treated for purposes of sharing fees?
A. Under Rule 1.5(g), fee splitting between lawyers who are neither partners nor associates is subject to certain limitations. The rule does not address fee splitting in the context of an “of counsel” relationship. Nonetheless, the Committee has concluded that where an “of counsel” lawyer is to receive a percentage of the fees paid by a client directly to the affiliated lawyer or law firm, the “of counsel” lawyer should be deemed an associate for purposes of the rule and the limitations do not apply. See N.Y. City Formal Op. 1996-8 n.2; see also Gold v. Katz, 193 A.D. 2d 566, 566 (1st Dep’t 1993) (upholding fee splitting arrangement where “plaintiff, although listed as ‘Of Counsel’ to the firm, nevertheless had a ‘fixed link’ to it as one who ‘regularly participate[d]’ in its work, and thus should be deemed an ‘associate’ of the firm not subject to the prohibition against fee splitting”).
Q. What rules govern attorney advertisements and solicitations under New York's Rules of Professional Conduct?
A. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, an advertisement is a public or private communication made by, or on behalf of, a lawyer or law firm, about that lawyer or law firm's services, the primary purpose for which is the retention of the lawyer or law firm, except communications to current clients or other lawyers. Rule 1.0(a).
A. Communications to existing clients or other lawyers are not advertisements. Rule 1.0(a). A lawyer may write for publication on legal topics (or speak publicly) without affecting the right to accept employment so long as the lawyer does not undertake to give individual advice. Rule 7.1(r). In this context, "without affecting the right to accept employment" means that lawyers may ethically obtain business by giving speeches and writing articles about law.
Any email containing attorney advertising must contain in the subject line the notation "ATTORNEY ADVERTISING." Rule 7.1(f).
Every advertisement other than those appearing in a radio, television or billboard advertisement, in a directory, newspaper, magazine or other periodical (and any website related thereto) or made in person under Rule 7.3(a)(1) must be labelled "Attorney Advertising" on the first page, or on the home page in the case of a website. Rule 7.1(f). A self-mailing brochure or postcard also must contain the words "Attorney Advertising." Rule 7.1(f).
utilize meta tags or other hidden computer codes that, if displayed, would violate the Rules.
Q.What information may be included in attorney advertising under the Rules?
statements describing or characterizing the quality of the lawyer's or law firm's services.
A lawyer who is certified as a specialist in a particular area of law or practice by a private organization approved for that purpose by the American Bar Association may state the fact of certification if, in conjunction therewith, the certifying organization is identified and the following statement is prominently made: "The [name of the private certifying organization] is not affiliated with any governmental authority. Certification is not a requirement for the practice of law in the State of New York and does not necessarily indicate greater competence than other attorneys experienced in this field of law.
A lawyer who is certified as a specialist in a particular area of law or practice by the authority having jurisdiction over specialization under the laws of another state or territory may state the fact of certification if, in conjunction therewith, the certifying state or territory is identified and the following statement is prominently made: "Certification granted by the [identify state or territory] is not recognized by any governmental authority within the State of New York. Certification is not a requirement for the practice of law in the State of New York and does not necessarily indicate greater competence than other attorneys experienced in this field of law.
the advertisement does not contain statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading, or otherwise violate a Rule; it can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated; and it is accompanied by the disclaimer, "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome." Rule 7.1(d)(e).
An advertisement may use statements that compare the lawyer's services with the services of other lawyers only if the statements can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated, the advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading, and does not otherwise violate the Rules, and the comparative statement is accompanied by the disclaimer "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome." Rule 7.1(e).
An advertisement may include statements that are reasonably likely to create an expectation about the results a lawyer can achieve only if the statements can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated, the advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading, and does not otherwise violate the Rules, and the comparative statement is accompanied by the disclaimer "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome." Rule 7.1(e).
A. A lawyer or law firm must retain copies of all advertisements for a period of not less than three years following initial dissemination, except that copies of advertisements contained in a computer-accessed communication shall be retained for not less than one year. Rule 7.1(k).
A lawyer or law firm may use a domain name for an internet web site that does not include the name of the lawyer or law firm, provide that all pages of the web site clearly and conspicuously include the actual name of the lawyer or law firm; the lawyer or law firm in no way attempts to engage in the practice of law by using the domain name; the domain name does not imply an ability to obtain results in a matter; and the domain name does not otherwise violate the Rules. Rule 7.5(e).
A lawyer who assumes a judicial, legislative or public executive or administrative post or office may not permit the lawyer's name to remain in the name of the law firm or to be used in professional notices of the firm during any significant period in which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm, and during such period, other members of the firm cannot use the lawyer's name in the firm name, or in professional notices of the firm. Rule 7.5(b).
A. No. Rule 7.5(b). See generally New York County Lawyers' Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Question No. 677, p. 2, March 30, 1990. The NYCLA opinion reviews decisional law: In re Shephard, 92 AD2d 978 (3d Dep't 1983) (use of the name "The People's Law Firm of Jan L. Shephard" is improper since it implies that the firm is publicly supported or provides free legal services); but see In Re von Wiegen, 63 N.Y. 2d 163 (1984) (using the motto "The Country Lawyer" was not improper when the lawyer's own name was inserted in addition to the motto, because there was no potential for deception about the identity of the lawyer in question).
A. Solicitations by in-person or telephone contact, or real-time or interactive computer-accessed communication are prohibited unless the recipient is a close friend, relative, former client or existing client.
In addition, no unsolicited communication is permitted to any individual injured in the accident or to a family member or legal representative of such an individual, by a lawyer or law firm, or by any associate, agent, employee or other representative of a lawyer or law firm representing actual or potential defendants or entities that may defend and/or indemnify said defendants, before the 30th day after the date of the incident, unless a filing must be made within 30 days of the incident as a legal prerequisite to the particular claim, in which case no unsolicited communication is permitted before the 15th day after the date of the incident. Rule 4.5(a).
A retainer agreement may be provided along with a solicitation only if the top of each page is marked "SAMPLE" in red ink in a type size equal to the largest type size used in the agreement and the words "DO NOT SIGN" appear on the client signature line. Rule 7.3(g).
If a lawyer or law firm advertises a fixed fee for specified legal services, or performs services described in a fee schedule, the lawyer may not charge more than the fixed fee for such stated legal services as set forth in the advertisement or fee schedule, unless the client agrees in writing that the services performed or to be performed were not legal services referred to or implied in the advertisement or in the fee schedule and, further, that a different fee arrangement shall apply to the transaction.
Unless otherwise specified, if a lawyer broadcasts any fee information authorized under Rule 7.1, the lawyer is bound by any representation made therein for a period of not less than 30 days after such broadcast.
Unless otherwise specified in the advertisement, if a lawyer publishes any fee information authorized under Rule 7.1 in a publication that is published more frequently than once per month, the lawyer is bound by any representation made therein for a period of not less than 30 days after such publication. If a lawyer publishes any fee information authorized under Rule 7.1 in a publication that is published once per month or less frequently, the lawyer is bound by any representation made therein until the publication of the succeeding issue. If the lawyer publishes any fee information authorized under Rule 7.1 in a publication that has no fixed date for publication of a succeeding issue, the lawyer is bound by any representation made therein for a reasonable period of time after publication, but in no event less than 90 days.
Please note that the following questions and answers are designed to assist the Bar in identifying the issues and relevant disciplinary rules pertaining to attorney advertising and solicitations. Counsel are advised in all cases to consult the Rules of Professional Conduct to determine whether the applicable Rules are satisfied. Please also note that certain Rules governing attorney advertising are the subject of pending litigation. See Alexander v. Cahill, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53602 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (appeal pending) The Committee does not opine on the likely outcome of litigation involving challenges to the Rules, which may affect your obligations.
Q. What rules govern attorney advertisements and solicitations under New York ’s Rules of Professional Conduct?
Solicitations must also comply with the additional requirements of Rule 7.3.
A. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, an advertisement is a public or private communication made by, or on behalf of, a lawyer or law firm, about that lawyer or law firm’s services, the primary purpose for which is the retention of the lawyer or law firm. Rule 1.0(a).
A. A solicitation is a kind of advertisement, one directed to or targeted at a specific recipient or group of recipients, and a significant motive for which is pecuniary gain.
A solicitation is an advertisement initiated by, or on behalf of, a lawyer or law firm that is directed to, or targeted at, a specific recipient or group of recipients, or their family members or legal representatives, the primary purpose for which is the retention of the lawyer or law firm, and a significant motive for which is pecuniary gain. Rule 7.3(b).
Q. Can I send articles, updates or speeches I have written to existing clients or other lawyers?
A. Communications to existing clients or other lawyers are not advertisements. Rule 1.0(a). A lawyer may write for publication on legal topics (or speak publicly) without affecting the right to accept employment so long as the lawyer does not undertake to give individual advice. Rule 7.1(r).
Q. Can I send articles, updates or speeches I have written to prospective clients?
Every advertisement other than those appearing in a radio, television or billboard advertisement, in a directory, newspaper, magazine or other periodical (and any website related thereto) or made in person under Rule 7.3(a)(1) must be labeled “Attorney Advertising” on the first page, or on the home page in case of a website. Rule 7.1(f). A self-mailing brochure or postcard also must contain the words “Attorney Advertising.” Rule 7.1(f).
A. Attorney advertising can include a nickname, moniker or motto or trade name only if that nickname, moniker, motto or trade name does not imply an ability to obtain results in a matter. Rule 7.1(c)(7). A lawyer or law firm may use a telephone number which contains a domain name, nickname, moniker or motto that does not otherwise violate the Rules. Rule 7.5(f).
A. A lawyer or law firm may use a domain name for an internet web site that does not include the name of the lawyer or law firm, provide that all pages of the web site clearly and conspicuously include the actual name of the lawyer or law firm; the lawyer or law firm in no way attempts to engage in the practice of law by using the domain name; the domain name does not imply an ability to obtain results in a matter; and the domain name does not otherwise violate the Rules. Rule 7.5(e).
A. Lawyers cannot hold themselves out as having a partnership with one or more lawyers unless they are in fact partners. Rule 7.5(c). Similarly, a lawyer cannot imply that lawyers are associated in a law firm if that is not the case. Rule 7.1(c)(3).
A. A lawyer in private practice cannot practice under a trade name or a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such a name, or containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm. Rule 7.5(b).
A. If otherwise lawful, a law firm may use as, or continue to include in its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession. Rule 7.5(b).
A. A lawyer who assumes a judicial, legislative or public executive or administrative post or office may not permit the lawyer’s name to remain in the name of the law firm or to be used in professional notices of the firm during any significant period in which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm, and during such period, other members of the firm cannot use the lawyer’s name in the firm name, or in professional notices of the firm. Rule 7.5(b).
A. A lawyer or law firm may publicly identify one or more areas of law in which the lawyer or law firm practices, or may state that the practice of the lawyer or law firm is limited to one or more areas of law.
A. An advertisement that otherwise complies with the Rules may include a paid endorsement of or testimonial about a lawyer or law firm only if the advertisement discloses that the person is being compensated therefor (Rule 7.1(c)(2)); the endorsement or testimonial does not come from a client with respect to a matter that is still pending (Rule 7.1(c)(1)); the advertisement does not contain statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading, or otherwise violate a Rule; it can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated; and it is accompanied by the disclaimer, “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.” Rule 7.1(d)(e).
A. An advertisement that otherwise complies with the Rules may use actors or fictionalized events or scenes provided that the advertisement discloses their use. Rule 7.1(c)(4).
A. An advertisement may use statements that compare the lawyer’s services with the services of other lawyers only if the statements can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated, the advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading, and does not otherwise violate the Rules, and the comparative statement is accompanied by the disclaimer “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.” Rule 7.1(e).
A. An advertisement may include statements that are reasonably likely to create an expectation about the results a lawyer can achieve only if the statements can be factually supported by the lawyer or law firm as of the date on which the advertisement is published or disseminated, the advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading, and does not otherwise violate the Rules, and the comparative statement is accompanied by the disclaimer “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.” Rule 7.1(e).
A. Only advertisements that are also solicitations must be filed with a disciplinary committee. Rule 7.3(b),(c).
A. All solicitations directed to a recipient in the State of New York must be filed with the appropriate disciplinary committee. The filing shall consist of a copy of the solicitation, a transcript of the audio portion of any radio or television solicitation and, if the solicitation is in a language other than English, an accurate English-language translation.
The filing requirement does not apply to solicitations directed or disseminated to a close friend, relative, or former or existing client; a web site maintained by the lawyer or law firm, unless the web site is designed for and directed to, or targeted at, a prospective client affected by an identifiable actual event or occurrence or by an identifiable prospective defendant; or professional cards or other announcements authorized by Rule 7.5(a).
A. Copies of solicitations are to be filed with the attorney disciplinary committee of the judicial district or judicial department wherein the lawyer or law firm maintains its principal office. Where no such office is maintained, the filing shall be made in the judicial department where the solicitation is targeted. Rule 7.3(c).
A. No solicitation relating to a specific incident involving potential claims for personal injury or wrongful death is permitted before the 30th day after the date of the incident, unless a filing must be made within 30 days of the incident as a legal prerequisite to the particular claim, in which case no unsolicited communication is permitted before the 15th day after the date of the incident. Rule 7.3(e).
A. A retainer agreement may be provided along with a solicitation only if the top of each page is marked “SAMPLE” in red ink in a type size equal to the largest type size used in the agreement and the words “DO NOT SIGN” appear on the client signature line. Rule 7.3(g).
A. A lawyer or law firm advertising any fixed fee for specified legal services must, at the time of fee publication, have available to the public a written statement clearly describing the scope of each advertised service, which statement must be available to the client at the time of retainer for any such service. Such legal services must include all those services that are recognized as reasonable and necessary under local custom in the area of practice in the community where services are performed. Rule 7.1(j).
A. If a lawyer or law firm advertises a range of fees or an hourly rate for services, the lawyer or law firm cannot charge more than the fee advertised for such services.

References: §1200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.