Readers of this blog know that I have written extensively on the issues related to Avvo Legal Services. You can go here and scroll down to see all my posts and links to some of my articles. And, it is no secret that I have been critical of Avvo's model from the beginning, arguing that it places attorneys in a position to violate several rules of professional conduct.
For this reason, I have not been surprised to see that ethics committees in Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Jersey, New York and, most recently, Utah have issued opinions holding that it would be unethical to participate in Avvo Legal Services. Florida, and North Carolina are considering the question. Of these, only North Carolina is reportedly considering holding that participating in Avvo Legal Services would be OK, but it is also considering amending the rules -- which begs the question, if is OK to participate why would you need to amend the rules to allow it? But that is a different conversation...
Today's post is to announce the latest addition to the list of opinions holding that participating in Avvo Legal Services would violate current rules.
As reported in the Lawyer Ethics Alert Blog, just over a week ago, the Virginia State Bar voted to approve a draft
ethics opinion holding that a lawyer’s participation in services such as Avvo's would violate the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Like most other opinions on the subject, it does not refer to Avvo by name but given the description of the services it addresses it is pretty clear the opinion relates to Avvo Legal
Services.
Not surprisingly, the opinion reaches the same conclusions reached in the literature and other opinions, namely that participating in Avvo Legal Services violates rules related to sharing fees with non-lawyers, paying for referrals, duties to safeguard client property, and duties related to trust accounts including the duty to refund unearned portions of a fee.
Having said that, the opinion states lawyers could participate in the service if some of the conditions are changed. Doing so, however, would change Avvo's terms and it is not clear that Avvo would want to agree to change its business model.
The opinion (which is available here) will now go before the Virginia Supreme Court for approval.
In light of so many opinions holding against Avvo's service, I have often suggested Avvo is going about its plan the wrong way. Rather than arguing that the rules should be interpreted to say something they don't, or, worse, that they should be ignored, or continue to advance weak legal arguments, Avvo should advocate for changes in the rules.
Take a look at the position Avvo took in relation to the Virginia opinion (here) and note what they don't do. They don't even try to address the substantive/legal arguments related to the violations of the rules. They essentially say the opinion is bad because it does not allow Avvo to do what it wants. The argument is essentially that what Avvo wants is good, and, thus, preventing it is bad. Yet, the problem is that even if what Avvo wants is good, it leads to violations of the rules. The solution can't be to ignore the rules. The solution has to be to change the way Avvo wants to do what it wants to do so it does not violate the rules or to change the rules.
What Avvo does now puts lawyers in a position to violate the rules. Arguing that it doesn't is going nowhere fast. So, why doesn't Avvo change course and try to present arguments for changing the rules to suggest a new approach would be better for the profession, for consumers and for society in general? To its credit, Avvo seems to be trying this approach in North Carolina and maybe it is just waiting to see if it works there as a "test case" before trying it elsewhere.
I have argued for this change in tactics before and I am happy to report I am not alone in this view. Brian Faughnan (of Faughnan on Ethics) has recently published "an open letter" to Avvo arguing the same point.
No comments:
Post a Comment