fees professional-ethics attorney-fees
Why are lawyer referral fees considered &quot;unethical?&quot;
<p><a href="https://lalegalethics.org/avvo-lawyer-referral-service-ruled-to-be-unethical/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">According to this article</a> the Avvo lawyer referral program was ruled unethical.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the Avvo website offers an impermissible referral service, in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2(c) and 7.3(d), as well as improper fee sharing with a nonlawyer in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Joe Pastorek seems to agree:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As old Professor Rault used to teach at Loyola–usually referring to Pastorek v. Lanier Systems Co., 249 So.2d 224 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971)–“If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? Four! The tail is still a tail, no matter what you call it!”</p>
<p>Whether you use language to disguise something or not, it’s legally still what it is. I guess “It is what it is” is a legal truism.</p>
<p>I always wondered if this was the basis of Justice Roberts’ thinking in the ACA “it’s really a tax” holding.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, as Ernie Svenson points out:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whenever I read about these kinds of turf war battles between the regulatory protectionists and the new innovators of legal services I’m more interested is someone (Bueller? Anyone?) explaining: <strong>(1) what harm the old rule was designed to protect against (2) is that harm still a real problem, and/or as much of a problem, and (3) does the new innovator’s system cause harm?</strong> [emphasis mine]</p>
<p>It’s astonishing that we lawyers never feel any obligation to revisit the reasons for a long-standing prohibition. We keep our blinders on and focus total analysis on the letter of the law.</p>
<p>So how exactly is Avvo’s scheme (assuming as we lawyers in Louisisna apparently must) causing some grevious public harm?</p>
<p>BTW, I was shocked to learn a year ago that in Florida local bar associations make referrals to attorneys and get a fee for doing so.</p>
<p>I was never able to get anyone to explain to me how that’s okay.</p>
<p>But hey maybe the reasons for laws that were passed long ago don’t matter. Our elders were wise so we should just “shut up and do what we’re told”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So my questions are:</p>
<ol>
<li>What harm the old rule was designed to protect against?</li>
<li>Is that harm still a real problem, and/or as much of a problem?</li>
<li>Does the new innovator’s system cause harm?</li>
</ol>

<p>Attorneys are supposed to get paid for doing work for clients with the client's best interests at heart. Attorney #1 paying a referral fee when attorney #2 does not might influence you to recommend attorney #1 even though that is not in the best interest of the client. Replace "referral fee" with "kickback.</p>

<p>A bar association presumably has either an objective or, more likely, a semi-random referral method.</p>
