ILNews

Lawyers should stay away from 'daily deals'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A question from a northern Indiana attorney about using online group coupons for advertising spurred a legal ethics opinion from the Indiana State Bar Association in March warning lawyers against using such offers as they are “fraught with peril.” Doing so could put a lawyer in violation of Indiana’s Rules of Professsocial-media-other-bars.gifional Conduct.

South Bend attorney Jonathan Watson, who practices at Wandling & Associates, turned to an ISBA listserv for solo and small firms to pose the question: Does anyone know if using Groupon or LivingSocial for an estate package special would run afoul of any ethics rules?

When he posted the question in January 2011, Watson had his own firm offering estate planning, small business legal services, and general litigation. He’s always been up on the latest technology, so when Groupon and other ‘daily deal’ companies started to take off a couple years ago, he considered whether it would be a good way to offer his estate planning services that are flat-fee based.

Online group coupon deals offer customers the chance to purchase goods or services at a discounted rate as long as a certain number of people purchase the same deal. Once that tipping point has been reached, the deal can move forward and people can purchase and redeem their coupons. The business offering the goods or services works with the online coupon company to make the deal happen; both share in the money generated from the sale.
 

ted waggoner Waggoner

Watson said he heard back from several people who were interested in what he found out regarding usage, but no one mentioned considering the issue from an ethics standpoint.

The post caught the eye of members of the ISBA’s Legal Ethics Committee, which decided to write an opinion on the matter. That decision came on the heels of changes to advertising rules, Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 to 7.5, that took effect in January 2011. This issue can be considered an advertising one, noted Ted Waggoner, a committee member and attorney with Peterson Waggoner & Perkins in Rochester.


patrick olmstead Olmstead

Patrick Olmstead Jr., an Indianapolis attorney with Hoover Hull and member of the committee, added that after the advertising rules were amended, the Legal Ethics hotline started fielding more calls that were Internet related with questions about creating referral websites and what one can write in a blog.

The committee investigated how one enters into a group coupon arrangement, what kind of promises the attorney makes as the one offering the service, and what kind of promises the companies arranging the online deals make. Once the committee understood the inner workings of the deals, it compared them to the Professional Rules of Conduct and found problems in four different areas, Waggoner said.

Those four areas are the issues of lawyer-client engagement; safekeeping of property; duties to a prospective client; and fee sharing and channeling clients. The committesocial-media-other-bars.gife concluded that a lawyer using a group coupon-style arrangement may violate Professional Conduct Rules 1.15, 1.16, 5.4 and 7.2.

Why be concerned?

At first blush, Olmstead and Waggoner thought that an attorney could use these kinds of deals with no issues, but a little digging changed their minds. The turning point for Olmstead was reading a copy of a Groupon contract.

“It really does concern me that Groupon takes 50 percent no matter what it is,” he said.

It took about nine months for the committee to release its opinion, but Watson came to the conclusion that it was something attorneys couldn’t use about a week after posting his question. He zeroed in on the issue of fee splitting with nonlawyers.

“(A prohibition against) fee sharing with a nonlawyer is intended to prevent law practices from being influenced improperly from outside considerations,” Watson said. “When we advertise on Groupon, sending a percentage of fees to an outside entity could look like its influencing us in some way that’s not proper.”

Rule 5.4 prohibits fee sharing with nonlawyers except in specific circumstances.

“By the process of the advertising companies creating buying groups, the online providers such as the Company are being paid to channel buyers of legal work to the specific lawyer, in violation of the advertising and fee sharing rules,” the ethics opinion states. “We believe this is comparable to the situation analyzed in Opinion 3 of 2008, in which we concluded that there is a prohibition on the fee sharing between a brokerage firm and an attorney.”

The idea of using group coupons for legal services isn’t unique to Indiana’s legal community. Several bar associations across the country have issued their own opinions as to whether one can use online coupon deals. Indiana’s seems the most decisive in its conclusion that the deals just shouldn’t be done based on our Rules of Professional Conduct. In fact, the opinion released by ISBA’s Legal Ethics Committee, warns that “such social media marketing is fraught with peril …”

Waggoner said the opinions from the state bars of South Carolina and New York had some influence, but every state’s Rules of Professional Conduct can differ. The South Carolina bar’s opinion found the use of these coupons doesn’t violate its Rule 5.4(a) prohibition on sharing of legal fees.

Another issue that arises out of these deals is being able to control the content of the coupon advertising. The social media site has its own advertising writers, and the attorney may not have input on what the deal specifies or if it includes the term “advertising material,” Olmstead said.

“Something that simple could get someone disciplined,” he said.

Watson said he thought it was unfortunate that he couldn’t use the online group coupon deal as he thought it would be an interesting way to advertise. Watson, Olmstead and Waggoner are unaware of any Indiana attorneys who have used the service. Last year, a Missouri attorney offered to provide a will and durable power of attorney for $99 through a group coupon deal. Missouri has no formal ethics opinion on the matter, but did give the attorney the go-ahead for the agreement.

Indiana attorneys can utilize coupons or other deals to stand out when marketing their services; they just cannot involve an intermediary like these social media companies. An attorney in California last year offered $99 misdemeanor DUI defense on Cyber Monday to the first three people who contacted him.

While the Indiana opinion warns against using group coupon deals, Olmstead and Waggoner encourage anyone who is considering it to reach out to the ethics committee or other counsel before entering into such an agreement.

“If you really want to do this, let us know and we’ll help guide you through this,” Olmstead said. “I believe in that on a gut level. If you’re trying to make money, make your business more profitable through advertising, part of the cost of doing that is making sure that you’re doing it right.”•
ADVERTISEMENT

  • Lawyers should stay away from ' daily deals
    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.
  • Lawyers should stay away from 'daily deals'
    I agree, I mean after all it simply does not make sense to charge a fixed fee for legal services. Daily deals are here to stay though, no doubt about that, however I have to agree with the poster in saying that daily deals are not suitable for lawyers.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT