Opinion ID: 2461515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the arguments for and against solicitation

Text: O'Quinn argues that it is unconstitutional for the State Bar to prosecute him for soliciting business through subsequently compensated intermediaries, or runners, as the State Bar calls them. Citing actions by Abraham Lincoln and others, O'Quinn maintains that times have changed and solicitation should now be permitted. It is not enough, says O'Quinn, for the State Bar to argue that anti-solicitation rules protect the legal community from embarrassing, undignified behavior; further, O'Quinn contends that the ban against solicitation serves to prohibit competition among lawyers and is especially burdensome upon young lawyers or lawyers in smaller firms. O'Quinn also asserts that none of his clients have been harmed and none have complained. O'Quinn asks: why shouldn't attorneys be allowed to solicit business for pecuniary gain? Urging a so-called retreat to reality, O'Quinn says we should break from tradition and allow lawyers to solicit business in-person or through intermediaries. This is especially true, O'Quinn argues, because accident victims are vulnerable to unscrupulous insurance adjusters. The State Bar, joined by the Texas Trial Lawyers Associtation as an amicus curiae, counters that the potential for fraud and invasion of privacy supports a broad prohibition against in-person solicitation. The State Bar also points out that no one has control over a lawyer's runners and that the lawyer is not responsible for their actions or representations.