Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 92-003

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 92-3
Issued February 14, 1992
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
[Not current-subsequent rule amendments to DR 2-101, eff. January 1, 1993 and August 16, 1993.]
SYLLABUS: The Code of Professional Responsibility does not preclude Ohio lawyers from
participating in televised group legal advertising. However, there are ethical concerns with regard
to participation in some types of programs, particularly programs which go beyond the ministerial
function of placing callers in contact with participating attorneys. Many of the ethical concerns
related to improper screening and referral are eliminated in programs in which participating
attorneys are assigned market areas based on zip codes, consumers are given an 800 number to call,
and the calls originating from assigned market areas are electronically switched to the participating
attorney's office.
OPINION: This opinion responds to an inquiry regarding the propriety of participating in
televised group advertising of legal services from companies that promote and provide such
advertising. The requester specifically inquires about a television advertising program in which
designated marketing areas based on zip codes are assigned to participating attorneys. When a
consumer calls the 800 number on a commercial, the call originating from an assigned market area
is electronically switched to the attorney's office, but is never routed by humans.
Television advertising by attorneys is not prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
but is regulated by several rules within the Code. Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (B) authorizes a lawyer
to publish or broadcast, subject to Disciplinary Rules 2-102 through 2-105, information over the
radio or television, but requires that the information comply with Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (A)
which prohibits the use of any form of communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or
deceptive statement or claim. Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (D) requires that “[i]f the advertisement is
communicated to the public over radio or television, it shall be prerecorded, approved for broadcast
by the lawyer, and a recording of the actual transmission shall be retained by the lawyer."

Op. 92-3 2
Disciplinary Rules 2-101 (E) and (G) govern the advertising of fees and are applicable to television
broadcasts. Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (E) states that “[i]f a lawyer advertises a fee for a service, such
service must be rendered for no more than the fee advertised." Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (G)
provides that “[u]nless otherwise specified, if a lawyer broadcasts any fee information the lawyer
shall be bound by any representation made therein for a period of not less than 30 days after such
broadcast." Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (H) contains a caveat that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or
indirectly compensate or give any thing of value to representatives of the press, radio, television, or
other communication medium in anticipation of or in return for professional publicity in a news
item.”
Within the last several years, Ohio attorneys have been contacted by companies that market and
provide group advertising of legal services. Many of these programs utilize television advertising
to generate potential clients for attorneys who pay to participate.
In the past, this Board advised that the Code of Professional Responsibility contains no specific
provision precluding Ohio lawyers from participating in group legal advertising. Ohio Sup.Ct, Bd
of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 89-30 (1989). The Board acknowledged that group
legal advertising is a concept that facilitates the process of informed selection of a lawyer by
potential consumers of legal services. Id.
In Opinion 89-30, the Board addressed the propriety of television advertising through the “Injury
Helpline.” The opinion described the proposed advertising as consisting of thirty second
commercials that would encourage injured persons to call a toll free number. Toll free operators
would give callers the name of the attorney who had purchased the exclusive rights to receive all
telephone calls from certain geographic areas defined by zip code. The commercials would include
the written statement "Advertisement Paid for By Sponsoring Attorneys. Not a Lawyer Referral
Service.” Ohio Sup.Ct, Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances and Discipline Op. 89-30 (1989). The
Board specifically noted that the proposed advertisement was not a referral service. The Board
advised that Ohio lawyers may participate in group legal advertisements on television wherein calls
are routed from viewers to lawyers who pay for exclusive rights to receive calls from specific
geographic areas, but that the advertisements must not contain any false, fraudulent, misleading or
deceptive statements or claims as defined in Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (C). The Board suggested an
additional safeguard would be for the operator to inform the caller that it is not a referral or
endorsement and that the attorney had paid for the advertisement. Id.

Op. 92-3 3
The Board has also addressed ethical concerns with regard to some types of advertising programs
which go beyond the mere function of placing callers in contact with participating attorneys. Ohio
Sup.Ct, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 91-7 (1991). In Opinion 91-7 the Board
advised that
[a]n attorney should not participate in a lawyer referral service that provides joint
advertising of legal services to generate potential clients who are then screened and
referred to attorneys who have paid for the service. Participation is unethical
because the attorney compensates the services in violation of DR 2-103 (B) and such
referral services are not approved organizations under DR 2-103 (D). It is also
unethical if the participating attorney has not approved the advertisement prior to
broadcast pursuant to DR 2-101 (D) and if the communication is misleading in
violation of DR 2-101 (A).
The Board reaffirms the advice contained within Opinion 91-7 and Opinion 89-30.
In conclusion, the Code of Professional Responsibility does not preclude Ohio lawyers from
participating in televised group legal advertising. However, there are ethical concerns with regard
to participation in some types of programs, particularly programs which go beyond the ministerial
function of placing callers in contact with participating attorneys. Many of the ethical concerns
related to improper screening and referral are eliminated in programs in which participating
attorneys are assigned market areas based on zip codes, consumers are given an 800 number to call,
and the calls originating from assigned market areas are electronically switched to the participating
attorney's office.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding
the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the
Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's Oath of Office.