道德意见261
Emergency Room Referrals by a Law School Clinical Program
规则7.1(b)(2)和(3)不适用 to a law school clinical program’s referrals of emergency room patients, 谁曾是配偶虐待的受害者, 要么求助于没有任何法律学生隶属的澳博app，要么求助于几个澳博app的名单，其中一些法律学生隶属于名单上的一个澳博app，受害者在急诊室时不必选择特定的澳博app.
适用的规则
- 规则7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services)
调查
询问者是一个向受虐妇女提供无偿法律援助的组织的主任和两名成员. 该组织, which is staffed by law students 和 supervised by a law professor, 制定了一项新计划，向当地医院急诊室的受虐妇女提供法律信息. This information will include advice on the availability of legal remedies 和 representation. 除了, 如果病人提出要求, one of the Program’s counselors will refer the patient to sources of legal assistance. If the patient has financial resources that render her ineligible for pro bono assistance, 她将被介绍给收费澳博app. None of the Program’s counselors will be affiliated with these fee-charging attorneys. If the patient is eligible for pro bono assistance, the counselors will refer her to pro bono legal clinics with which some of the counselors may be affiliated. No referrals will be made unless the patient specifically requests one. Counselors will only provide patients with the names of sources of legal assistance; patients will pursue these referrals on their own volition after they have left the emergency room.
The inquirers have asked the Committee whether the Program’s emergency room referrals would violate 规则7.1(b)(2)及(3) of the District of Columbia 职业行为准则 (“D.C. 规则”或“规则”).1 我们的结论是他们不会.
讨论
D.C. 规则7.第1条规定
(b) 澳博app不得寻求当面接触, 或者通过中介, employment . . . by a non-lawyer who has not sought 澳博app’s advice regarding employment of a lawyer, if:
. . .
(2) the solicitation involves the use of undue influence;
(3)潜在客户明显处于身体或精神状态，使潜在客户不可能行使合理的权利, considered judgment as to the selection of a lawyer. . . .
In order to determine whether the Program’s referrals would violate 规则7.1(b)(2)及(3), 我们必须将转介分为两类:一类是转介给澳博app或法律诊所，该计划的咨询师与之没有联系;另一类是转介给法律诊所，其中一些咨询师可能与之有联系.
从第一个类别开始，规则7.1(b)(2)及(3) would not apply to referrals to unaffiliated lawyers. 规则7.1(b) governs a lawyer’s attempt to solicit, that is, to “seek . . . employment,” from a potential client either directly 或者通过中介. Thus, this Committee has previously applied 规则7.1(b) to an arrangement in which a law firm planned to pay a per-client fee to an insurance company for referrals2 和 to one in which a law firm planned to retain a marketing agent to solicit clients.3 In both cases, the law firms engaged intermediaries for the specific purpose of obtaining clients. 与此形成鲜明对比的是, an attorney who receives a referral from a counselor who is not the attorney’s agent, 谁的推荐没有得到考虑,4 和 who is not acting under the attorney’s direction5 is not actively “seeking employment” within the meaning of 规则7.1(b). Rather, the attorney is the passive beneficiary of a recommendation. 规则7.1(b), 因此, would not apply to a referral to any attorney with which the Program’s counselors are not affiliated.6
规则7是否.1(b)适用于辅导员向可能与本项目辅导员有关联的澳博app或法律诊所的转介. The circumstances surrounding the referrals in this particular inquiry, 然而, lead us to conclude that the provisions of 规则7.1(b)不适用. 在这里, 咨询师向患者提供诊所和澳博app的名单，其中可能包括与项目咨询师有关联的澳博app或诊所, 但咨询师并不鼓励患者选择附属诊所或澳博app而不是名单上的其他诊所和澳博app. Thus, the Program is not “seeking employment” for an affiliated clinic or attorney, 和 Rule 1.7(b)不适用.
The conduct that is the subject of this inquiry is, 因此, quite different from the in-person solicitations that were at issue in 格雷戈里, 574 A.2d 265 (D.C. 1990)，其中D.C. Court of Appeals found that a lawyer’s aggressive, 刑事被告在法院的亲自招揽可能违反了《澳博app》第2-103(a)(3)条, the nearly identically worded predecessor to 规则7.1(b)(3).7 不像在 格雷戈里, 谁只为自己招揽客户, the counselors in this inquiry are merely providing patients with a list of legal clinics 和 attorneys; they are not in any way suggesting to these patients that the latter select one attorney or clinic on the list over another or that they select any of the clinics or attorneys on the list.
此外，与 格雷戈里, which found that courthouse solicitation is likely to exploit a vulnerable group of potential clients, 违反了DR 2-103, 这里讨论的项目将最大限度地减少患者在选择澳博app时感到压力的可能性，只有在患者要求时才向患者提供诊所和澳博app的名单，并允许患者在离开急诊室并有更多时间进行额外思考后，根据自己的意愿进行这些转介.8
这里的辅导员进行的活动明显更像D中委员会批准的活动.C. 酒吧Op. 64 (1979). 在这种观点下, this Committee concluded that the Law Students in Court Program, 在高等法院的房东-租客分院开设了一个信息亭，告知租客该计划提供的免费法律援助, did not violate DR 2-103 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
结论
The Committee concludes that the Program’s emergency room referrals would not violate 规则7.1(b)(2)及(3). 当本计划将患者转介给与本计划辅导员无关的澳博app和诊所时, the referrals are mere recommendations to which 规则7.1(b)(2)和(3)不适用. When the Program referrals include attorneys or clinics with which some of its counselors may be affiliated, 规则7.1(b)(2)和(3)也不适用, 由于患者在转诊时没有受到选择附属澳博app和诊所而不是其他澳博app和诊所的压力.
调查没有. 95-4-10
通过:1995年11月21日
1. 询问者还要求就该方案是否涉及规则5意义内的未经授权的法律行为提出意见.5 . D.C. 规则和D.C. 上诉法院规则第49(b)(2)及(3)条. The definition of the practice of law is a question of law, see Rule 5.5 cmt. 1, 和, 根据委员会规则C-5, the 法律道德 Committee does not provide opinions on questions of law. Therefore, the Committee does not address this aspect of the inquiry.
2. 看到维.C. 酒吧Op. 253 (1994).
3. 看到维.C. 酒吧Op. 225 (1992).
4. 看,e.g.， Pace v. 州，368. 2d 34,342(佛罗里达州. 1979年)(招揽规则不适用于“任何人向另一人推荐澳博app，而推荐人与该澳博app作为后者的代理人或雇员或其他类似关系没有关系或私隐关系”.”); Louisiana State 酒吧 Ass’n v. St. 罗曼，560. 2d 820, 823 (La. (招揽规则不适用，因为没有充分证据证明澳博app通过因招揽而获得奖励的非澳博app招揽客户.”); In re Appert, 315 N.W.2d 204,214(明尼苏达州. (招揽规则不适用于澳博app试图联系由法学院的学生研究员介绍给他的潜在客户，因澳博app下载网和澳博app之间“没有发生价值交换”)。.
5. Cf. 在re Berlant, 328 A.2d 471, 477-78 (Pa. 1974) (solicitation rule applies because “solicitation agreement existed or, 至少, that appellant knew of the solicitation when he accepted the cases.”),证书. 拒绝，421 U.S. 964 (1975).
6. 看到维.C. 酒吧Op. 51(1978)(“[保险代理人]根据自己的独立考虑，将客户介绍给调查方显然是允许的.”).
7. DR 2-103 (A)规定:
澳博app不得寻求当面接触, 或者通过中介, 他或她的雇佣(或他的合伙人或合伙人的雇佣)是由一个没有寻求他或她关于雇佣澳博app的建议的非澳博app, if:
. . .
(3)潜在客户的身体或精神状况明显不太可能进行合理的锻炼, considered judgment as to the selection of a lawyer.
8. 根据法庭, 澳博app, “accosted persons known by him to have been charged with an incarcerable criminal offense, 没有忠告的人, 他刚刚听取了法官关于定罪后可能受到的最大惩罚和澳博app可以提供的重要协助的建议. The vulnerability of persons in that situation should have been, 确实如此, 答辩人显而易见.” 574 A.2d, 268页(重点为原文).
