MRPC Rule 7.3

(a) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a person with whom the lawyer has

no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive for the lawyer’ s doing

so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. The term “ solicit” includes contact in person, by

telephone or telegraph, by letter or other writing, or by other communication directed to a

specific recipient, but does not include letters addressed or advertising circulars distributed

generally to persons not known to need legal services of the kind provided by the lawyer in a

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 87 Updated with MSC order(s)

particular matter, but who are so situated that they might in general find such services

useful, nor does the term “solicit” include “ sending truthful and nondeceptive letters to

potential clients known to face particular legal problems ” as elucidated in Shapero v

Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 US 466, 468; 108 S Ct 1916; 100 L Ed 2d 475 (1988).

(b) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a person by written or recorded

communication or by in-person or telephone contact even when not otherwise prohibited by

paragraph (a), if:

(1) the person has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or

(2) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment.

There is a potential for abuse inherent in direct contact by a lawyer with a person known to need

legal services. These forms of contact subject a person to the private importuning of the trained

advocate in a direct interpersonal encounter. A person, who may already feel overwhelmed by

the circumstances giving rise to the need for legal services, may find it difficult to evaluate fully

all available alternatives with reasoned judgment and appropriate self-interest in the face of a

lawyer’s presence and insistence upon being retained immediately. The situation is fraught with

the possibility of undue influence, intimidation, and overreaching.

However, the United States Supreme Court has modified the traditional ban on written

solicitation. Shapero v Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 US 466; 108 S Ct 1916; 100 L Ed 2d 475

(1988). Paragraph (a) of this rule is therefore modified to the extent required by the Shapero

decision.

The potential for abuse inherent in direct solicitation justifies its partial prohibition, particularly

since lawyer advertising and the communication permitted under these rules are alternative

means of communicating necessary information to those who may be in need of legal services.

Advertising and permissible communication make it possible for a person to be informed about

the need for legal services, and about the qualifications of available lawyers and law firms,

without subjecting a person to impermissible persuasion that may overwhelm a person’s

judgment.

The use of general advertising and communications permitted under Shapero, rather than

impermissible direct contact, will help to assure that the information flows cleanly as well as

freely. Advertising is out in public view, thus subject to scrutiny by those who know the lawyer.

The contents of advertisements and communications permitted under Rule 7.2 are permanently

recorded so that they cannot be disputed and may be shared with others who know the lawyer.

This potential for informal review is itself likely to help guard against statements and claims that

might constitute false or misleading communications, in violation of Rule 7.1. The contents of

some impermissible direct conversations can be disputed and are not subject to third- party

scrutiny. Consequently they are much more likely to approach (and occasionally cross) the

dividing line between accurate representations and those that are false and misleading.

There is far less likelihood that a lawyer would engage in abusive practices against an individual

with whom the lawyer has a prior family or professional relationship or where the lawyer is

motivated by considerations other than the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. Consequently, the general

prohibition in Rule 7.3(a) is not applicable in those situations.

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 88 Updated with MSC order(s)

This rule is not intended to prohibit a lawyer from contacting representatives of organizations or

groups that may be interested in establishing a group or prepaid legal plan for its members,

insureds, beneficiaries, or other third parties for the purpose of informing such entities of the

availability of, and detail concerning, the plan or arrangement that the lawyer or the lawyer’ s

firm is willing to offer. This form of communication is not directed to a specific person known

to need legal services related to a particular matter. Rather, it is usually addressed to an

individual acting in a fiduciary capacity seeking a supplier of legal services for others who may,

if they choose, become clients of the lawyer. Under these circumstances, the activity which the

lawyer undertakes in communicating with such representatives and the type of information

transmitted to the individual are functionally similar to and serve the same purpose as advertising

permitted under these rules.