TAG: Fee Sharing: LegalEthics.com resources relating to Fee Sharing. Subscribe
Source Cook County Record|2017-07-29T16:33:50-07:00Jul 21st, 2017|Categories: LegalEthics|Tags: Fee sharing, Lawyer Referral Services, New Jersey, Websites|
A recent decision by the N.J. Supreme Court prohibits lawyers in that state from working with clients through online legal services because of concerns over alleged illicit fee-sharing and referral fees.
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:33:58-07:00May 15th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Arizona, Attorney-client relationship, Confidentiality, Conflicts, Fee sharing|
State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 13-01 addressed whether an Internet marketing voucher or coupon sold by a lawyer for legal representation is consistent with the Arizona Rules of Professional [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:34:03-07:00Feb 12th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Conflicts, Fee sharing, Indiana|
Indiana lawyers should not use Groupon or similar coupon or daily deal sites to market legal services. See Indiana Ethics Op. 2012-1.
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:36:23-07:00Feb 2nd, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Fee sharing, Nebraska, Websites|
Nebraska lawyers may advertise their services via Groupon and similar sites. Nebraska Ethics Opinion 12-03.
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:36:23-07:00Jan 15th, 2013|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Alabama, Conflicts, Fee sharing|
Alabama lawyers may not use of websites like Groupon to sell their legal services because it violates the ethics rule against sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, as well as the [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:41:10-07:00Apr 10th, 2002|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Fee sharing, Lawyer Referral Services, Washington, Websites|
A Washington lawyer is not prohibited from entering into an agreement, such as that required by the for profit Internet entity that operates a Web site providing users of the [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:41:14-07:00Jun 16th, 2001|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Attorney-client privilege, Conflicts, Fee sharing, Maryland, Websites|
In Md. State Bar Assn. Committee on Ethics Opinion 01-03 (May 16, 2001), the committee opined that a proposed Internet business that would bring lawyers together with potential clients and [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:41:19-07:00Feb 7th, 2001|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Confidentiality, Fee sharing, Washington, Websites|
Proposal by a Washington lawyer participate as owners in a company, in which other owners are presumably not lawyers, to market the firm’s legal services through a Web site raises [...]
Source Peter Krakaur|2017-06-26T18:42:10-07:00Apr 6th, 1999|Categories: LegalEthics, Post|Tags: Advertising, Confidentiality, Conflicts, Fee sharing, Washington|
Proposal to open National Internet Law Office does not comply with Washington state advertising rules relating to trade names and raises conflicts, fee splitting, and confidentiality concerns. Informal opinion 1831 [...]
