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.”•

  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?