Opinions of The General Counsel, 1121 ALBJ, Vol. 82 No. 6 Pg. 442 (November, 2021)

PositionVol. 82 6 Pg. 442

OPINIONS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

No. Vol. 82 No. 6 Pg. 442

Alabama Bar Lawyer

November, 2021

Roman A. Shaul

roman. shaul® alabar.org Lawyers Cannot Use "Daily Deal"Specials to Advertise Legal Services

QUESTION:

May attorneys use"dailydeal" apps or websites to market discounted legal services in the form of redeemable coupons?

ANSWER:

No. The use of daily deal websites or apps, such as Groupon, violates or potentially violates a number of professional conduct rules.

DISCUSSION:

The Office of General Counsel has been asked to opine on the ethical propriety of the use of "daily deal" websites and apps as marketing tools for law firms. To generate business, these "daily dea” vendors typically contact consumers via email and give them an opportunity to purchase a certificate or coupon for services or products that can be redeemed from a retailer for a discounted rate. The proceeds from each sale are typically divided on a 50-50 split between the web-site/app and the retailer. For example, a law firm would agree to sell a coupon entitling a purchaser to $500 worth of legal services for a discounted rate of $250. The prospective client would pay the website $250 and would receive a certificate for $500 to redeem for legal services with the law firm. The certificate may or may not have an expiration date. From the sale, the website would keep 50 percent of the revenue, $125 in this case, and remit the remaining $125 to the lawfirm.

Several bar associations have issued opinions concerning the ethical propriety of lawyers using these "daily deal" marketing schemes. New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina have issued ethics opinions approving the use of websites and apps in this manner, while Indiana has issued an opinion disapproving of such sites. Regardless of disposition, all these states acknowledge that marketing through these sites is fraught with ethical landmines. As an initial matter, the primary issue raised is whether this scheme constitutes the sharing of legal fees with a non-lawyer in violation of Rule 5.4(a), Ala. R. Prof. C.

In Formal Ethics Opinion 10, North Carolina found that the portion of the fee retained by the website is merely an advertising cost since "it is paid regardless of whether the purchaser actually claims the discounted service and the lawyer earns the fee..." In Ethics Advisory Opinion 11 -05, South Carolina also determined that the website's share of the fee paid by the purchaser was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT