|
A LAWYER MAY ENGAGE IN SELLING INSURANCE, OTHER THAN LIFE INSURANCE,
FROM HIS LAW OFFICE, PROVIDED, THAT HE DOES NOT ADVERTISE SUCH INSURANCE
BUSINESS IN ANY MANNER; AND THAT THE VOLUME OF HIS LAW PRACTICE
AND INSURANCE BUSINESS IS SO SMALL THAT SEPARATE QUARTERS FOR EITHER
IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
CANONS INTERPRETED: (Professional Ethics)
Canon 27: Advertising, Direct or Indirect.
An attorney inquired whether it is ethical for him to hold an agent's
license to sell casualty and related kinds of insurance from his
law office on a parttime basis, without solicitation or advertising
in any manner.
The Advisory Committee of the Nebraska State Bar Association is
of the opinion that this proposed activity would not violate the
Canons of Professional Ethics, provided, that the safeguards herein
set forth are adhered to.
Canon 27 prohibits the solicitation of professional employment by
circulars or advertising, direct or indirect, and the conduct of
a business which serves as a feeder to the lawyer's practice.
Apparently, the standing Committee on Professional Ethics of the
American Bar Association has not issued a formal opinion on this
question, but it has rendered several informal opinions which delineate
both prohibited and permitted conduct in this area.
Informal Opinion No. 682 of that committee held that a practicing
lawyer may not also conduct a real estate business at the same time
and from the same office.
Informal Opinion No. 424 held that it is improper for a practicing
attorney to also engage in the sale of life insurance; that due
to the legal problems involved in such sales, solicitation for life
insurance may become a means of solicitations of business for the
attorney.
Informal Opinion No. 987 issued May 23, 1967, discussed the question
whether it is ethical for a lawyer who serves as vice-president
in a bank in his day-to-day work to practice law in the bank premises
during daily banking hours. While in this instance the Committee
held that it would be unethical for the bank officer to practice
law, in citing from Informal Opinion C-431, the Committee said:
"It is not necessarily improper for a practicing attorney to
also engage in other business, provided such business is of such
a nature or is conducted in such a manner as not to be inconsistent
with the lawyer's duties as a member of the Bar. Such an inconsistency
arises when the business is one which will readily lend itself as
a means of procuring professional employment for him, is such that
it can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation would be regarded
as the practice of law."
In a contrary holding, Informal Opinion No. 775 ruled that a lawyer
may engage in an independent business "(1) if the separate
business is clearly not necessarily the practice of law when conducted
by a lawyer, (2) if it can be conducted in accordance with and so
as not to violate the Canon, (3) if it is not used or engaged in
such a manner as to directly or indirectly advertise or solicit
legal matters for the lawyer as a lawyer, (4) if it will not 'inevitably
serve' as a feeder to his law practice, (5) if it is not conducted
in or from a lawyer's law office, except in cases where the volume
of the law practice and business is so small that separate quarters
for either is not economically feasible, and where even in such
cases, there is no indication on the shingle, office door, letterhead
or otherwise that the lawyer engages in any activity except the
practice of law."
It, therefore, appears that a lawyer may engage in selling insurance,
other than life insurance, from his law office where the volume
of his law practice and insurance business is so small as to preclude
maintaining separate quarters for these enterprises. In so doing,
however, the lawyer must strictly adhere to the criteria set forth
in Informal Opinion No. 775, and avoid any suggestion that the insurance
business is an indirect solicitation for his law practice.
68-3
|
