88 N.J.L.J. 357
June 3, 1965
OPINION 75
Motor Club Attorneys' List
An attorney requests an opinion concerning the propriety of
attorneys permitting their names to appear on a list published and
circulated by a motor club, which list is headed "Attorneys Who
Have Agreed to Handle Automobile Property Damage Claims for Members
of (name of club)." The list is made available to the members of
the club.
The attorney poses the question because his client - a member
of the club - desires to have him handle a claim rather than use
the attorney whose name had been indicated by a branch office of
the club.
With the list is a blank retainer agreement which the member
may sign and which states in part, "Undersigned hereby retains the
following attorney to collect Automobile Property Damage Claim."
According to the instructions contained in the pamphlet in which
the list is printed, the member may choose an attorney from the
list, fill in the retainer agreement, attach it to the accident
report with his estimate of damage or repair bill, and then send it
to the local branch office of the club "for referral to attorney
through (name of club) Legal Reimbursement Dept." Twenty of the 21
counties of the State are represented by the attorneys listed.
So far as it appears, this list is not an approved law list,
and it, therefore, constitutes a violation of Canons of
Professional Ethics, Canon 43 for an attorney to permit his name to
appear on it. And, it is clear from the wording "Attorneys Who Have
Agreed to Handle," etc. that the attorneys knew that their names
were to appear in the pamphlet, which in turn was to be distributed
to the club members.
This also constitutes a violation of Canon 27, since it
becomes direct advertising. In a somewhat analogous case, where an
underwriter insurance bureau wrote into policies the names of the
attorneys selected in the localities wherein the insureds resided,
directing them to communicate with such attorneys in case of
accident or other problems under the policies, ABA Comm. on
Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion 137 (1935) held such
publication of names to be unethical.
We do not view this as the type of situation such as was
considered by the United States Supreme Court in Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1, 84A S.Ct. 1113, 12 L.Ed.
2d 89 (1964).
For additional discussion of this problem, see Drinker, Legal
Ethics 161 et seq. (1953).
Canon 46 does not aid the lawyers involved because, first,
this is not an approved legal publication and, secondly, the
specialized legal service offered is not from lawyer to lawyer, but
from lawyer to layman.
The practice of lawyers consenting to have their names listed
in the publication in question is disapproved.