ILNews

Holiday gifts raise ethical concerns

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sending seasonal gift baskets or holiday cookies could be considered an ethical violation for lawyers who might want to say thanks to a colleague in the legal profession for sending a client their way.

That’s the takeaway from a strict reading of Indiana’s attorney advertising rules, which were rewritten a year ago and are now in place for their inaugural holiday season. One revision broadens the scope of a rule on the “channeling of professional work,” leaving lawyers with little practical guidance on what the line is on sending holiday tokens of appreciation to those who’ve helped their practices in the past.

But those enforcing the disciplinary rules, along with attorney ethics experts and an array of small and large law firm practitioners, say they don’t think nominal holiday gifts rise to the level of an ethical rule violation. Instead, it’s the large-scale gifts and back-room referral patterns that are the focus of the lawyer conduct rules.

“I will be surprised if any sensible attorneys change their practice of sending cards that could not be compensation or anything of value within the meaning of the rule,” said Jerry Jenkins, a partner at Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis who leads the firm’s ethics committee. “The Supreme Court surely has more important things to do than pursue holiday baskets and such.”

Changes to the Indiana attorney advertising rules in 2010 shuffled existing provisions and revised some of the writing of the professional conduct rules. For the most part, it did not change the essence of the provision, but in some places, it did broaden the scope. The court changed two sections that deal with attorney referrals in the context of advertising. Previously, Rule 7.2(b) had focused on press, radio, television or other communication mediums, but those listed areas were removed from the 2011 version. Now, it just prohibits lawyers from giving “anything of value to a person for recommending or advertising the lawyer’s services.” That’s led some to question whether the provision prohibits any referral-related holiday giving between attorneys that might have even the slightest value.

Commentary added for the first time to this rule specifically says the rule in question is designed to prohibit a lawyer from paying others for “channeling professional work.” That phrase is new and remains open for interpretation, according to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission executive secretary G. Michael Witte.

At the moment, Indiana doesn’t have any law on the books about that specific issue and the court hasn’t issued any guidance on what is and isn’t allowed, he said. But Witte doesn’t see the rule’s wording would lead to enforcement for those sending something that would otherwise be determined “reasonable” in most situations.

He looks to the state’s judicial code of conduct, which in Rule 3.13 allows for reasonable gifts that are “commensurate with the occasion.”

“That refers to birthdays and holidays, and while we don’t have anything that refines it more, that provision gives us a reasonable point of reference here,” Witte said. “We know there are certain things that occur during the calendar in the year when lawyers give and receive gifts, and the holidays are one of them where this would be termed appropriate.”

Witte hesitated to define what might cross the line of being “reasonable,” saying that he doesn’t want to define it and – if the case arose to test that line – the Supreme Court would have to offer that interpretation.

Law firms contacted by IL either declined to comment on this issue or offered statements that they comply with the rule as it’s written, without saying whether they specifically read the rule to preclude any small item such as holiday gift cards or baskets.
 

limontes Limontes

Alex Limontes, of counsel at Mitchell Hurst Dick & McNelis and incoming chair of the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Solo & Small Firm Committee, reads the rule to be more focused on the continued practice of funneling work to attorneys. The “for” part of the provision is the most important, he said.

“With regards to holiday gifts, I think that you begin to tow that line between ethical and unethical conduct if you give a large gift or significant monetary gift,” he said. “If you send the gift with a card that states something like, ‘Enjoy the gift. Thank you for sending me all of those clients,’ then that could potentially be construed as giving something of value for recommending or advertising.”

Limontes would advise attorneys to try and keep gifts simple and inexpensive such as cookies, candy or gift baskets. Multiple gifts could all be the same so that no one appears to be getting special treatment, and lawyers should avoid putting themselves in positions where someone could question the reason for the gift.

On the referral issue, he and others say that written non-exclusive fee agreements as outlined in Professional Conduct Rule 1.5 should be used between attorneys if any clients are being referred.

At Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis, law firm management relies on the counsel of the state’s former attorney ethics chief, Don Lundberg. While he doesn’t think an item like a gift basket falls within the Rule 7.2(b) prohibition, Lundberg does see how a literal reading of the rule can be taken to encompass those items and might cause some attorneys to wonder if this might be a practical concern.referral

“I suppose an after-the-fact, tangible expression of gratitude could be substantial enough and given in such a way that it would reasonably be viewed as a promise to make a similar gift for future referrals,” he said. “In that event, it could readily be interpreted as a quid pro quo rather than a pure gratuity.”

To avoid any potential issues, Lundberg said lawyers would be well-advised to be transparent about whether something is a gift of appreciation or something more. For example, a note could be written and attached to a box of chocolates or nuts to say, “I hope you’ll accept this as an expression of my appreciation for the business you have referred to me over the past year.”

He cautioned, “If, in reality, it is a disguised quid pro quo for referral of a case and the ‘gift’ is of substantial value and tied to the result in a particular case, no amount of window dressing will keep it from being what it really is.” 

Jenkins agreed, saying that although there’s little guidance about what the rule means and no disciplinary decisions interpreting this provision, lawyers should be conservative in how they handle any gift – even during the holiday season.

“As for Christmas baskets and other nominal gifts, the careful attorney will take pains to emphasize that it is a holiday gesture to a business acquaintance and not compensation for a referral of business,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT