78-5.

• Case Date: March 31, 1979
• Court: Alaska

Alaska Ethics Opinion 1979. 78-5. Ethics Opinion No. 78-5Whether it is Ethical for an Employee of Alaska Legal Services to Refer Ineligible Clients and Fee-Generating Cases to Individual Lawyers Within the Community Rather than to the Statewide Lawyer Referral Office in Anchorage.The problem presented is whether it is ethical for an employee of Alaska Legal Services to refer ineligible clients and fee-generating cases to individual lawyers within the community rather than to the statewide lawyer referral office in Anchorage. DR 2-103 is the applicable rule regarding recommendations of professional employment. In particular, DR 2-103(A) states that a lawyer is not prohibited from being "recommended, employed or paid by, or cooperating with, one of the following offices or organizations that promote the use of his services . . . if there is no interference with the exercise of independent professional judgment in behalf of his client." The section then proceeds to list the organizations from which a lawyer is not prohibited from being recommended, including one operated or sponsored by a governmental agency (such as the federally funded Alaska Legal Services Corporation). Although the rule is stated in terms that a lawyer is not prohibited from accepting a recommendation from an organization like ALSC, it would seem to follow therefrom that an employee of ALSC is not prohibited from recommending the lawyer. Although it was primarily concerned with the fee arrangements of legal aid societies, ABA Informal Opinion No. 1334 lends support to this conclusion. In that opinion, one of the questions presented was whether a legal aid society could accept a client and then refer the matter to private counsel who, in turn, is compensated by the legal aid society. It was ruled that "no Disciplinary Rule forbids a lawyer with a legal aid society from making such a reference or forbids a lawyer from receiving such a reference on any fee basis that is mutually satisfactory and that is not clearly excessive or illegal." Obviously, there are differences between the situation addressed in the...