I. Can a lay person owner of a marketing program utilizing the URL dumpmyspouse.com on highway bill boards and bus benches which state along the top "When Matrimony Turns to Acrimony" above the URL and below the URL DIVORCE/SUPPORT/VISITATION and the attorneys direct telephone number.
1. Sell the promotion to attorneys at a reasonable price where the layperson has no contact with the potential client. I think the answer will be yes generally
A.The URL /phone goes to the attorney website/phone that purchased the service. I believe this is allowable.
B.The URL goes to a website/phone that has a listing of attorneys with linking buttons/or message for the client to pick. I believe this may be allowable.
2.Sell the promotion by charging a per case fee for all calls /web page clicks that are routed to the attorney. [This may not be allowed.]
A.The client would go to a web site /phone message where information would be left and forwarded by another person or [This may not be allowed]
B.the client would call a number where information left and forwarded to an attorney.[This may not be allowed]
II. Can an attorney market on billbioards a url dumpmyspouse.com that links to his website. The answer will be yes.
1. Can the attorney refer to other attorneys client that come to the attorney through this url. I believe the answer will be yes.
2.Can the attorney take the signs into a geographical area logically getting client inquires from county’s that the attorney does not plan to practice in and in fact has the intent of this marketing for the purpose of referring to other attorney and taking a referral fee. I believe the answer will be no.
First a look at RI-17, January 24,1989.
SYLLABUS
A profit-making entity which markets lawyers' services to a defined interest group, for a fee to be paid by the lawyers participating, constitutes a legal referral service, participation in which violates MRPC 7.2(c).
References: MRPC 1.6, 7.2, 7.4, 8.4(c); MCR 8.121.
TEXT
"A business entity, organized for profit, herein referenced as "the Network", publishes a directory containing the names of lawyers who subscribe to the Network, and who purport to have expertise or at least interest in collection work."[RI-17]
The case in RI-17 it said "It appears that the directory is sold among business enterprises having need of professional collection work, in conjunction with which the Network furnishes professional service vouchers." Here the message without an attorney name is on a stationary advertisement,[billboard and bench]
In RI-!& the lawywers were called subscribing lawyers. "The vouchers are used to offset a portion of the participating lawyer's fees. A Network lawyer who has received these vouchers in payment for services rendered is entitled to receive, from the Network, cash equivalents for the vouchers, at an agreed, defined exchange rate."RI-17
In RI-17 "Each subscribing lawyer pays an annual fee to join the Network. "
MRPC 7.2(c) provides:
"A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services, except that a lawyer may pay the reasonable cost of advertising or written communication permitted by this rule and may pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization."
"The subscription fee paid by a lawyer to participate in the Network is not strictly for an unadorned listing in a directory of a type which might be construed to be merely an advertising medium." In DMS the fee would be for an unadorned listing if the url wnt to a web page that just listed names.

In Rather, the subscription payment involves the lawyer in a complete marketing arrangement, one which fixes the parameters of the professional service contract within narrow limits. As the term is generally used, the overall plan constitutes a "lawyer referral service" squarely within the prohibitions of MRPC 7.2(c), since the plan financially aggrandizes the Network, a profit-making enterprise.
The underlying rationale of MRPC 7.2(c) reflects the historical antipathy toward solicitation of clients. The rule has been ameliorated to reflect a modernized attitude toward media advertising, which in general enjoys First Amendment protection. See, Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 US 350 (1977); In re Primus, 436 US 412 (1978); Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 US 447 (1978), reh den., 99 S Ct 266; Woll v. Attorney General (on remand), 116 Mich App 791 (1982).
Bates established that media advertising, so long as it is truthful and not misleading, is "free speech" for First Amendment purposes. Primus held that what might constitute solicitation or barratry otherwise nonetheless enjoys First Amendment protection where the lawyer provides representation without charge, through an established nonprofit group, to persons who otherwise might be unaware that legal redress for some wrong may be available to them, and whose claims fall within a general civil or constitutional rights rubric. Ohralik and Woll reaffirm the principle that direct solicitation of fee paying clients is beyond the pale of First Amendment protection. But see Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 486 US 466 (1988).
MRPC 7.2(c) appears to go further than what is mandated by Primus, removing restrictions with respect to subject matter and organizational history that might be discerned from the language of the opinion, as well as any restriction on whether the lawyer directly profits from an association with the organization. The sole restriction is that the lawyer referral service or other legal service organization involved in marketing lawyer services not be organized for profit.
The Network does not fit within either exception recognized in MRPC 7.2(c). It is operated for profit, and it is not a mere advertising medium only. While the Network itself may be violating no law or regulation in its operations, a lawyer who subscribes would be in contravention of MRPC 7.2(c), and subject to discipline.
Additionally, the Network subscription agreement makes no provision for a lawyer and client to negotiate for a fee to be paid on other than a contingency basis, except for the possible addition of a "litigation fee" not to exceed 7.5% of a claim. MCR 8.121(E) provides:
"An attorney must advise a client, before entering into a contingent fee arrangement, that attorneys may be employed under other fee arrangements in which the attorney is compensated for the reasonable value of the services performed, such as an hourly or per diem basis."
In the absence of any indication that the Network so advises creditors before they utilize Network services, a subscribing lawyer who accepted a creditor-client on a contingency fee basis in accordance with the contractual obligation of the lawyer to the Network would be in violation of MRPC 8.4(c), which proscribes engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Adhering to MCR 8.121(E) would place the lawyer in breach of contract; conforming to the contractual obligation would be grounds for discipline.
This Committee does not express views on legal questions. However, MCR 8.121 constitutes, by its express terms, an interpretive and mandatory guide to construction of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Indeed, the MRPC are rules of court, which must be read in conjunction with other court rules.
MCR 8.121 also contains restrictions on the maximum fees that may be charged in certain circumstances; by its terms, however, this portion of the rule applies only to personal injury and wrongful death cases. MCR 8.121(A), subrule (E), is not so limited. The title of the rule, provided by the publisher, is irrelevant to its construction. See MCR 1.106. In contrast to MCR 8.121(A), MCR 8.121(E) applies on its terms to all contingent contracts, not just those arising in personal injury and wrongful death cases.
A lawyer participating in the Network would have to be cognizant of the manner in which the organization advertises the lawyer's services. Representations of expertise, as contrasted with empirically verifiable parameters of experience or interest, could run afoul of MRPC 7.1. If the operation of the Network involves an exchange of information among participating lawyers, precautions must be taken to avoid breaching confidentiality. MRPC 1.6; Colton v US, 306 F2d 633 (CA 2 1962); Sawabini v Desenberg, 143 Mich App 373 (1985).
Therefore, a profit-making entity which markets lawyers' services to a defined interest group, for a fee to be paid by the lawyers participating, constitutes a legal referral service, participation in which violates MRPC 7.2(c). Further, a marketing arrangement, whereby participating lawyers are contractually obligated to accept cases on a contingency fee basis, in whole or in principal part, violates the proscription in MCR 8.121(E) against entering into a contingency fee arrangement without first advising the client that lawyers' services may be procured under other fee arrangements, in which the lawyer is compensated for the reasonable value of the services performed, such as on an hourly or per diem basis.

Sphere: Related Content

SMARTER GOVERNMENT BUT MORE OF IT NEEDED

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
9/2/09
BY Terry Bankert
http://www.familylawguy.com


“The art of making the most out of life; the love of economy is the root of all virtue. (G.B. Shaw, Man and Superman, 1905)

We should all be happy that “ Droves of U.S. consumers, propelled by cash-for-clunkers vouchers up to $4,500, helped drive August auto sales to their best performance in 15 months -- welcome news after a long period of dismal sales, historic bankruptcies and uncertainty about the future.” [f]

Marco economic principals worked. Give money directly to people and they will spend it rationally.

That spent money will demonstrate a multiplier effects as it bounces around our economy benefiting business far beyond your local auto dealer , discredited bankert, deregulated financial manipulators or failed U.S. Corporation.

Possibly we should encourage the creation of a future skilled workforce by promoting public education,stimulate health by vouchers for food for children, insure our economy from the public cost of catastrophic illness of the uninsured in our public hospitals by offering universal health care, maybe… Oh, we are doing most of these things. We must just do them better.

We also subsidize farmers so their land is available for future needed farm capacity, public roads so business can get their product to market, a military to protect our shipping and protect our boarders and industrial production capacity.

I guess the point is government, public policy and the spending of tax dollars impact many aspects of the daily existence of our small, medium and large business. Smaller government is not the answer, just a smarter government. It is okay for government to help business directly and people.

WHY DON’T WE INVITE FORD TO FLINT

TIDBITS FROM [f]

*Ford Motor Co. delivered the best result among the nation's largest automakers, with a sales gain of 17.2%. "

* General Motors and Chrysler LLC, both of which had a quick bath in bankruptcy earlier this year, reported sales declines severe enough to cost them critical U.S. market share.

*1.26 million consumers …bought a new vehicle in August, nearly 58% chose a passenger car over a less-efficient pickup, van or SUV -- a shift that shows the impact of the clunkers program.

IT WAS UNAMERICAN TO BUY A FOREIGN CAR WITH CLUNKER MONEY?

*The biggest winners in August were smaller Asian automakers, Subaru and Hyundai, which posted sales increases of 51.5% and 47%, respectively. Among large automakers, Ford's performance was followed by Honda, up 9.9%, and Toyota, up 6.4%.


*More than 690,000 customers took part in the clunkers program, which gave consumers $3,500 to $4,500 to trade in certain vehicles for more fuel-efficient models. The program ran from July 24 through Aug. 24, with most sales occurring in August.

*“the preponderance of evidence shows the leading economic indicators are improving and the economy is out of the recession and now recovering, as is the global economy."

So lets not be afraid to recognize and encourages governmental ;programs. Lets not blindly follow the discredited conservative doctrines. We need governmental programs, just smarter ones.

“ The conflict in America is between two types of planning… privately planned economic scarcity by companies for profits or publicly planned economic abundance for people. ( Walter Reuther, The Nation, December 3, 1952)

PostedBy Terry Bankert
http://www.flintfamilylaw.com/

[f]http://www.freep.com/article/20090902/BUSINESS01/909020350/1319/Clunkers-plan-helps-auto-sales-hit-15-month-high

Sphere: Related Content

OBAMA DOING TOO MUCH TO HELP BUSINESS!

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
9/1/09
by Terry Bankert
a known non-conservative (NC)

GO TEAM OBAMA
NABE: Majority Of Economists Say Monetary Policy Is "About Right" [rn]

U.S ECONOMY DOES NOT REQUIRE 2ND STIMULUS [r]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy does not need a second fiscal stimulus package, instead the government should cut spending over the next two years, according to a survey of business economists released on Monday.[r]

MOST ECONOMIST THINK OBAMA IS DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB, IF ANYTHING HE IS HELPING TOO MUCH! THIS EFFORT SHOULD SHIFT TO HEALTH CARE
The National Association for Business Economics revealed Monday that economists strongly agree with current monetary policy and have a favorable view of the current stance of fiscal policy.[rn]

CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST CONCERNED WITH SIZE OF U.S. BUDGET
Most economists in the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) semi-annual poll were concerned about the outlook for the U.S. government budget.[R]

NON-CONSERVATIVE HC REFORMS OFF TRACK

Also, they doubted health-care reforms proposed by the Obama administration would lower costs while increasing access and maintaining quality.[r]

CONSERVATIVES ARE VEXED...AGAIN

"This is one of the fastest-moving and most controversial economic policy environments we have experienced in a generation," said NABE president Chris Varvares. "The more vexing policy challenges about which there is less agreement are federal health-care ... budget policies."[r]

NON CONSERVATIVES STEPPED IN TO SAVE THE U.S. ECONOMY THE REAL CONSERVATIVES MESSED UP

The government early this year stepped in with a $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts to break the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Separately, it bailed out banks to prevent the financial system from collapsing.[r]

SO... NON CONSERVATIVE TAX DOLLARS GIVEN TO CONSERVATIVE BUSINESS SAVING THEIR TOOSH..NOW THE STAGE IS BEING SET TO ATTACK THE NON CONSERVATIVES [NC] FOR DOING JUST THAN.

Those actions left the economy saddled with a $1.58 trillion budget deficit in fiscal 2009, and a shortfall of about $9 trillion between 2010 and 2019.[r]

THE BALLOONING RED INK OF THE FEDERAL DEFICIT WAS TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY FROM THE UNBALANCED SHEETS OF BUSINESS TO THE BACKS OF THE TAX PAYERS AND THE CONSERVATIVE NOW PROTEST!

The ballooning budget deficit is causing alarm and feeding into opposition to President Barack Obama's central policy priority of overhauling the U.S. health-care system, whose price tag is $1 trillion.[r]

THE C’S ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE NC’S RESCUED THEM FROM THEIR OWN INCOMPETENCE..BUT LIKE THEIR OWN STEREOTYPE OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS THEY WANT MORE FOR NOTHING.

While economists in the NABE survey acknowledged that the stimulus package had helped to brake the pace of the economy's decline in the second quarter, only 35 percent viewed fiscal policy as being "about right".[r]

THE C’S SAY THANK YOU BUT YOU GAVE US TOO MUCH?...WELL GIVE IT BACK

Half of the respondents saw fiscal policy as too stimulative. About 266 members took part in the poll which was conducted between August 3-18. The U.S. economy contracted at a 1.0 percent annual rate in the second quarter after collapsing 6.4 percent in the first three months of the year.[r]

OKAY...NO STIMULUS PACKAGE FOR THE C’...HOW ABOUT HEALTH CARE FOR ALL OF US.

"Fully 76 percent do not believe a second stimulus package is needed. Three-quarters responded that they would like to see fiscal policy become more restrictive over the next two years, but only 28 percent expect that it will be," the NABE said.[r]

"Economists believe the long-term core inflation target of the Fed is two percent, but think that the average of core inflation in the 2014-18 time period will be three percent," the NABE said.[rn]"This may reflect their view that an excessively simulative fiscal policy and a complicated exit from its quantitative easing policies over the medium term will result in the Fed tolerating a higher level of inflation than it desires," the group added. "However, only a small percentage feels its policies would be inflationary due to a loss of Fed independence."[rn]

(C’S) JUST CAN’T STAND BEING STIMULATED...BY A (NC)

"In fact, the largest share, nearly 42 percent, expects fiscal policy to become even more stimulative than it is now."[r]

Just over half believed that fiscal stimulus would add between 0.5 and 1.5 percentage points to gross domestic product growth in the second half of 2009, while over a third saw it as adding less than half a percentage point.[r]

About 58 percent felt the stimulus would add between half and 1.5 percentage points to growth from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, the survey showed.[r]
Nearly 70 percent of economists believed that monetary policy was "about right". About 56 percent of respondents expected the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates unchanged over the next six months, while 44 percent saw an increase.[r]

SOME ECONOMIST ARGUE OBAMA HAS DONE TOO MUSH TO HELP BUSINESS

The Obama Administration's $787 billion stimulus package and the bailout of large banks has raised concern among lawmakers and economists in light of a $1.58 trillion budget deficit in 2009 and a $9 trillion deficit projected for 2010-2019.[rn]
The Fed has cut interest rates almost to zero and pumped around $1 trillion into financial markets via a range of credit easing measures to prevent lending from freezing up, amid a global credit crisis sparked by the collapse of the U.S. housing market.[r]

JUST WHERE IS MY COLLEGE TEXT ON MACRO ECONOMIC...0... INTEREST ON MONEY WILL NOT BE INFLATIONARY..SAY THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT US THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

"Half of the economists do not believe quantitative easing actions of the Fed will be inflationary over the next couple of years, while 41 percent think they will," the NABE said.[r]

Terry Bankert
http://www.flintfamilylaw.com

[r]
http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE57U0LT20090831

[rn]
http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1054078

Sphere: Related Content