102 N.J.L.J. 73
July 27, 1978
Prepaid Legal Service Plan
An attorney represents several corporations which are actively
engaged in the construction business. Several of these corporations
have over 50 employees. He proposes to present to these business
clients a prepaid group legal services plan under which his law
firm will render legal services for their employees, and inquires
as to its permissibility.
The inquirer refers to our Opinion 114, 90 N.J.L.J. 480 (1967); Opinion 383, 100 N.J.L.J. 1205 (1977); and DR 2-103(D)(4), and suggests that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Bates v. Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), has effectively eliminated any prohibitions which they may invoke.
What is proposed is not advertising as in Bates v. Arizona, supra, but rather solicitation as to which, see Ohralick v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978).
It is our opinion that the proposed activity is in violation of DR 2-103(C) and DR 2-103(D)(4)(b). We refer the inquirer to our Opinion 335, 99 N.J.L.J. 588 (1976), which we affirm.