|
Syllabus
A title insurance company for which business is solicited may not be conducted by a lawyer from the same office used by him in the practice of law.
Facts
A practicing lawyer acts as a local service agent for a title insurance company in the community in which he practices. The same office is used for his law practice and his title insurance business. One or more means of advertising is used in connection with the title insurance business.
Opinion
The conduct of a title insurance business by a lawyer is so closely connected to the practice of law that it must inevitably operate as an instrumentality for improper solicitation in violation of Canon 27 if: (i) the title insurance business is conducted from the same office or suite of offices used by the lawyer for the practice of law, and (ii) any type of advertising is employed to solicit business for the title insurance company. This Opinion does not address itself to whether and under what circumstances the conduct of a title insurance business or other business closely related to the practice of law might constitute a violation of Canon 27 even in the absence of either of the above two factors.
The rationale of Opinion No. 7 of this Committee is fully applicable to the title insurance activity of the lawyer and should be considered as controlling.
1995 Addendum
This Opinion was based upon the Canons of Professional Ethics, the predecessor to the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct became effective on January 1, 1993, replacing the Code of Professional Responsibility. While the language of the Rules is somewhat different from the Code and the Canons, the Ethics Committee considers this Opinion to continue to provide guidance to attorneys in this area. Attorneys are cautioned to review The Colorado Code of Professional Responsibility (found in the Colorado Ethics Handbook), to update the research contained in this Opinion and to conduct any independent research necessary.
Canon 27 prohibited advertising by attorneys. Advertising is no longer prohibited; however, any advertising must be consistent with the requirements of Rule 7.1 (communications concerning lawyer's services); Rule 7.2 (regarding lawyer advertising); and 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients). Some of the prohibitions contained in Opinion 36 remain. Direct contact with prospective clients is prohibited by Rule 7.3 and a "feeder operation" is still unethical.
|
