Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 92-010

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 92-10
Issued April 10, 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[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio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 through 2-105.]
SYLLABUS: In Ohio it is not improper for a law firm to advertise and operate a dial-a-lawyer
service offering legal advice by lawyers to callers over a telephone for a fee. However, there are
several disciplinary rules that place ethical, restrictions on such dial-a-lawyer services: Disciplinary
Rules 2-101, 2-102, 2-103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 3-103, 4-101, 5-101, and 6-101. Such telephone
advice constitutes professional legal employment through which the lawyer owes the caller all the
traditional duties owed by a lawyer to a client.
OPINION: The question presented is whether it is proper under the Ohio Code of Professional
Responsibility for a law firm to advertise and operate a dial-a-lawyer service offering legal advice
over the telephone for a fee. The law firm plans to advertise through newspaper, radio and
television media a tollfree telephone number and or a 900 number. The proposed advertisements
would offer to explain areas of law in plain language. The explanations would be based on
precedent, statute, judicial decisions or a combination thereof in terms understandable to a
layperson. Computerized legal research would be used. The fee for the telephone advice would be
fair and fully explained in all advertisements. The service would be primarily advisory, but
courtroom representation would be available if needed.
Dial-a-lawyer services offering legal advice over the telephone for a fee are available in several
states. See David Margolick, Can't Afford a Lawyer? In the 900 Directory, Advice is $3 a Minute,
N.Y. Times, December 28, 1990, at B6. The hallmark of the services is the offering of legal advice
in a relatively short period of time at fees affordable to the majority of the public. Even so, their
use has raised questions as to whether such services violate ethics rules governing the practice of
law. Although it is not unusual for lawyers to provide legal advice to their clients over the
telephone, it seems unusual when this legal advice is given to a caller with whom the lawyer has no
previous professional relationship.

Op. 92-10 2
Several ethics committees have issued opinions on this issue. The Professional Ethics Committee
of the Florida Bar has advised that ethical problems exist in a law firm forming a corporation with a
name such as "Legal Hotline Inc." inviting inquiries from the public about legal problems and
referring all inquiries back to the law firm. Florida Bar, Op. 88-13 (1988). According to the
committee, the corporation would function as an improper lawyer referral service; the name of the
corporation would be misleading as it implies the corporation can provide legal advice; and it
would violate the rule that forbids Florida lawyers from practicing law through a corporate entity
other than a professional corporation or association organized under the statute. The Florida
committee cited Rule 4-7.6 and Florida Statutes Chapter 621. Id.
The Ethics Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association has advised that "[a] telephone
'hot line' to give advice for a fee to callers on questions of Workers' Compensation law can ethically
be established by an attorney proficient in the field of Workers' Compensation law but the giving of
such telephone advice constitutes professional employment which imposes on the attorney all the
obligations inherent in a lawyer-client relationship." Los Angeles Cty Bar Ass'n, Op. 449 (1988).
The committee cited Disciplinary Rules 2-101, 5-102 (A) and (B), and 6-101 and Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code, §6068 (e) (duty of confidentiality). Id.
The Standing Committee on Legal Ethics of the Virginia State Bar has advised that a lawyer may
not offer in an advertisement that the lawyer will answer all legal questions on the telephone for a
year for a specified sum because such statement is misleading in that the lawyer may not be
competent in a given area to answer the questions and the lawyer may have other clients with
conflicting interests. Virginia State Bar Ass'n, Op. 1328 (1990). The committee cited its Opinion
369, Disciplinary Rules 2-101 (A), 2-103 (A) (1) (2), 4-101 (B), 5-105 (C) (D), 6-101 (A), and
Ethical Consideration 2-9. Id.

Op. 92-10 3
In Ohio there are no disciplinary rules within the Code of Professional Responsibility that would
categorically prohibit a dial-a-lawyer service offering legal advice by lawyers to callers over a
telephone. However, there are several disciplinary rules that place ethical restrictions on dial-a-
lawyer services: Disciplinary Rules 2-101, 2-102, 2-103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 3-103, 4-101, 5-101,
and 6-101. These rules and restrictions are discussed below.
1. In advertising a dial-a-lawyer service, a law firm must comply with the
Code's rules regarding advertising. The well known requirement of
Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (A) is that a lawyer shall not "use, or participate in the
use of, any form of communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading,
or deceptive statement or claim." The law firm should also thoroughly review
the requirements of the following rules: 2-101(B), providing for publication or
broadcast of information in written or printed material through the mail or
otherwise or over radio or television; 2-101 (C), defining false or misleading
communication, 2-101 (D), requiring that advertisements over the radio or
television be prerecorded, approved by lawyer, and a copy kept; 2-101(E), (F),
and (G), setting forth requirements regarding fee information; 2-101(H)
admonishing a lawyer not to compensate or give any thing of value to the
media in anticipation of or in return for professional publicity in a news item;
and 2-105 that prohibits, with exceptions, a lawyer from holding out publicly
as a specialist or as limiting practice.
2. A law firm cannot advertise and provide a dial-a-lawyer service under a
trade name. The law firm's name should be used in advertising the service.
Disciplinary Rule 2-102 (B) requires that "[a] lawyer in private practice shall not
practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the
lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name, or a firm name containing names
other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that the name
of a professional corporation or professional association or legal clinic may
contain "P.C." or "P.A." or similar symbols indicating the nature of the
organization, and if otherwise lawful a 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."

Op. 92-10 4
3. A lawyer cannot form a partnership or a professional association with a
non-lawyer to provide dial-a-lawyer services. Providing legal advice over the
telephone is the practice of law. Disciplinary Rule 3-102 (A) requires that "[a]
lawyer shall not form a partnership with a non-lawyer if any of the activities of
the partnership consist of the practice of law." Governing Bar Rule III Section
3(E) of the Supreme Court Rules of the Government of the Bar of Ohio states
that "[p]rofessional associations between lawyers and members of other
professions or non-professional persons are not permitted where any part of an
association's activities consist of the practice of law.
4. In providing dial-a-lawyer services a lawyer must act competently. Under
Disciplinary Rule 6-101 (A) “[a] lawyer shall not: (1) Handle a legal matter
which he [she] knows or should know that he [she] is not competent to handle,
without associating with him [her] a lawyer who is competent to handle it. (2)
Handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances. (3)
Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him [her].
5. If the lawyer offering advice through the dial-a-lawyer service cannot
provide the advice sought, or if the lawyer determines that the advice
sought cannot be given proper consideration through telephone consultation
the lawyer should inform the telephone client of such, but should not
recommend employment of the lawyer or of a partner or associate of the
law firm, unless the caller asks for advice regarding employment of a
lawyer. Disciplinary 2-103 (A) requires that "[a] lawyer shall not recommend
employment, as a private practitioner, of himself [herself], his [her] partner, or
associate to a non-lawyer who has not sought his (her) advice regarding
employment of a lawyer, except as provided in DR 2-101. For example, it
would be improper to offer to represent the caller in the courtroom, if the caller
did not ask for advice regarding employing a lawyer. See also DR 2-104.
6. A lawyer providing legal advice through a dial-a-lawyer service must
protect the confidences and secrets of a telephone client. Under Disciplinary
Rule 4-101(B) "[e]xcept when permitted under DR 4-101 (C), a lawyer shall not
knowingly: (1) Reveal a confidence or secret of his [her] client. (2) Use a
confidence or secret of his [her] client to the disadvantage of the client. (3)Use a
confidence or secret of his [her] client for the advantage of himself [herself] or
of a third person unless the client consents after full disclosure." The lawyer and
law firm should be aware that confidentiality of communications over mobile
telecommunications equipment may not be communication protected by the
attorney client privilege. See Illinois State Bar Ass'n, Op. 90-7 (1990).

Op. 92-10 5
7. A law firm cannot charge an excessive fee for the dial-a-lawyer service.
Disciplinary Rule 2-106 (A) states that "[a] lawyer shall not enter into an
agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee."
8. In rendering legal advice through the dial-a-lawyer service a lawyer must
consider whether there exists a conflict of interest among clients.
Disciplinary Rule 5-105 should be reviewed thoroughly. Extensive record
keeping might be needed to avoid representation of adverse interests. The
attorneys should not respond to questions without sufficient inquiry into the facts
and the people involved.
9. In advertising and operating a dial-a-lawyer service through a toll free
telephone number and/or a 900 number a law firm must abide by applicable
federal, state, and local laws.
In conclusion, it is the Board's opinion that within the ambit of the above ethical restrictions, it is
proper under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility for a law firm to advertise and operate a
dial-a-lawyer service that offers legal advice over the telephone for a fee. Such telephone advice
constitutes professional legal employment through which the lawyer owes the caller all the
traditional duties owed by a lawyer to a client.
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.