newfinalred-c

PROPOSED RULE 6.3
MEMBERSHIP IN LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION

A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of a legal services organization, apart from the
law firm in which the lawyer practices, notwithstanding that the organization serves persons having
interests adverse to a client of the lawyer. The lawyer shall not knowingly participate in a decision
or action of the organization:

(a) if participating in the decision or action would be incompatible with the lawyer's
obligations to a client under Rule 1.7; or

(b) where the decision or action could have a material adverse effect on the
representation of a client of the organization whose interests are adverse to a client
lawyer.

of the

COMMENT

[1] Lawyers should be encouraged to support and participate in legal service organizations.
A lawyer who is an officer or a member of such an organization does not thereby have a
client-lawyer relationship with persons served by the organization. However, there is potential
conflict between the interests of such persons and the interests of the lawyer's clients. If the
possibility of such conflict disqualified a lawyer from serving on the board of a legal services
organization, the profession's involvement in such organizations would be severely curtailed.

[2] It may be necessary in appropriate cases to reassure a client of the organization that the
representation will not be affected by conflicting loyalties of a member of the board. Established,
written policies in this respect can enhance the credibility of such assurances.

DEFINITIONAL CROSS-REFERENCES

“Knowingly”See Rule 1.0(f)
“Law Firm”See Rule 1.0(d)
“Material”See Rule 1.0(g)

COMMITTEE NOTES

Comparison To Current Tennessee Ethics Rules

There is no counterpart to this Rule in the Disciplinary Rules.

Comparison To ABA Model Rules

The Proposed Rule is identical to ABA Model Rule 6.3.

Changes Made to 1997 Committee Preliminary Draft In Response to Comments

No changes.

Comments Received After September 2000 Draft, Committee Response, and Changes
Made

181

PROPOSED RULE 6.4
LAW REFORM ACTIVITIES AFFECTING CLIENT INTERESTS

A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of an organization involved in reform of the law
or its administration notwithstanding that the reform may affect the interests of a client of the
lawyer. When the lawyer knows that the interests of a client may be materially benefitted by a
decision in which the lawyer participates, the lawyer shall disclose that fact but need not identify the
client.
COMMENT

Lawyers involved in organizations seeking law reform generally do not have a client-lawyer
relationship with the organization. Otherwise, it might follow that a lawyer could not be involved in
a bar association law reform program that might indirectly affect a client. See also Rule 1.2(B). For
example, a lawyer specializing in antitrust litigation might be regarded as disqualified from
participating in drafting revisions of rules governing that subject. In determining the nature and
scope of participation in such activities, a lawyer should be mindful of obligations to clients under
other Rules, particularly Rule 1.7. A lawyer is professionally obligated to protect the integrity of the
program by making an appropriate disclosure within the organization when the lawyer knows a
private client might be materially benefitted.

DEFINITIONAL CROSS-REFERENCES

“Knows”See Rule 1.0(f)
“Materially”See Rule 1.0(g)

COMMITTEE NOTES

Comparison To Current Tennessee Ethics Rules

There is no counterpart to this Rule in the Disciplinary Rules.

Comparison To ABA Model Rules

The Proposed Rule is identical to ABA Model Rule 6.4.

Changes Made to 1997 Committee Preliminary Draft In Response to Comments

No changes.

Comments Received After September 2000 Draft, Committee Response, and Changes
Made

No comments or changes.

183

CHAPTER 7
INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES

PROPOSED RULE 7.1
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING A LAWYER’S SERVICES

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer, the lawyer’s
services, the lawyer’s charges for fees or costs, or the law as relates to the services the lawyer will
provide. A communication is false or misleading if it:

(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, omits a fact necessary to make the
statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; or

(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or
states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct or other law; or

comparison can be factually substantiated; or

(d) with respect to the lawyer’s fees

(1) compares the lawyer’s fees with the fees of other lawyers, unless the comparison

can

be factually substantiated; or

(2) states or implies that there will be no charge for an initial consultation unless a

lawyer will without charge consult with all prospective clients for a reasonable

period of time; or

(3) specifies a fixed, variable or contingent fee, or a range of fees the lawyer will

charge, or states or implies that no fee will be owed by the client unless the
lawyer secures a favorable result for the client, unless the communication includes

the statement “F

EE ANDEXPENSEARRANGEMENTSVARY ANDSHOULDBEFULLY

ISCUSSEDWITHYOURLAWYER.”

COMMENT

[1] This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer's services, including advertising
permitted by Rule 7.2 and solicitations directed to specific recipients permitted by Rule 7.3.
Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer's services, statements about them should be
truthful and opinions rendered by a lawyer should be reasonably justified

. The prohibition in
paragraph (b) of statements that may create an "unjustified expectation" would ordinarily preclude
advertisements about results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of a damage award
or the lawyer's record in obtaining favorable verdicts, and advertisements containing client endorse-
ments. Such information may create the unjustified expectation that similar results can be obtained
for others without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances.Paragraph (d)

recognizes that statements about fees may be particularly confusing to prospective clients who are

unfamiliar with the market for legal services.

DEFINITIONAL CROSS-REFERENCES

184

“Consult” and “Consultation” See Rule 1.0(c)
“Material” and “Materially”See Rule 1.0(g)
“Reasonable”See Rule 1.0(i)

COMMITTEE NOTES

Comparison To Current Tennessee Ethics Rules

The Proposed Rule is substantially similar to DR 2-101(A), except that the Proposed Rule
embraces not only communications about the lawyer and the lawyer’s services, but also
communications about “the lawyer’s charges for fees and costs” and communications about “the
law as relates to the services the lawyer will provide.”

The Proposed Rule does not include the long list of permitted information contained in DR
2-101(B). If true, none of the information listed in DR 2-101(B)(1) through (19) would be likely
to mislead a prospective client. Communicating such information, therefore, would not be
prohibited by the Proposed Rule.

Paragraph (c) (which prohibits a comparison of feesunless it can be factually
substantiated) and Proposed Rule 1.5(a)(1)(i) (which adds “prior advertisements or statements by
the lawyer with respect the lawyer’s fees or charges for costs” as a factors to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of a fee or a charge for costs differ markedly from the current
Disciplinary Rules, DR 2-101(B)(20) through (25) and DR 2-101(I) and (J).

Comparison To ABA Model Rules

The Proposed Rule is identical to ABA Model Rule 7.1 except that the coverage of the
Proposed Rule has been broadened to cover not only communications about the lawyer and the
lawyer’s services, but also communications about “the lawyer’s charges for fees and costs” and
communications about “the law as relates to the services the lawyer will provide.”

Also Paragraph (c) addresses comparisons of a lawyer’s fees with those chargedby other
lawyers as well as comparisons of the lawyer’s services with other lawyer’s services.

Changes Made to 1997 Committee Preliminary Draft In Response to Comments

The Committee deleted the reference in Paragraph (A) to the rendering of an opinion with
respect to a material issue that could not be reasonably justified in light of facts known to the lawyer
at the time the opinion was rendered. The Committee concluded that this extra detail was
unnecessary.

Comments Received After September 2000 Draft, Committee Response, and Changes
Made

In response to concerns voiced by the Memphis Bar Association and the Tennessee Trial
Lawyers Association, the Committee recommends the deletion of Paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) and the
incorporation of Paragraph (d)(1) into Paragraph (c). The Committee concluded that Paragraph
(d)(2) is unnecessary because Paragraph (a) already prohibits false and misleading statements
about the lawyer’s services and fees, which, of course, would include falseor misleading
statements about initial consultations. The Committee deleted Paragraph (d)(3) because it
questions the efficacy of such a general warning and believes that clients are adequately protected

185