2025-05 | Office of Legal Ethics Counsel & Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri



Informal Opinion Number: 2025-05

Adoption Date: July 25, 2025

Rules: 4–7.2(c); 4–9.1

Information about Legal Services; Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession

Advertising; Lawyer Referral and Information Services

Subject: Advertising and Solicitation; Lawyer Referral and Information Services

Summary: Lawyers may only use client lead generation services if the services are “qualified services” registered with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel pursuant to Rule 4-9.1.

Question: Lawyer asks whether it is permissible to pay an online marketing company for client lead generation services. The marketing company attracts potential legal clients through internet advertisements. The marketing company then obtains contact information for potential clients along with information regarding the potential clients’ legal needs. The company forwards a potential client’s information to an attorney participating in the referral service and shows the potential client a profile of that attorney. If the potential client wishes to hire the attorney, the potential client can contact the attorney directly by clicking on a link on the marketing company’s website. The marketing company charges the attorney a particular dollar amount for the referral, but characterizes the charge as advertising fees.

Answer: Lawyer’s use of the lead generation service described above is permissible only if the service complies with Rule 4 dash–9.1- Lawyer Referral and Information Services. Rule 4 dash–9.1 is applicable to all services that refer particular potential clients to particular lawyers, regardless of the name or characterization of the activities or fees used by the service. See Rules 4 dash–9.1(d) and 4 dash–7.2(c). A lawyer’s use of a referral service that fails to comply with Rule 4 dash–9.1, violates Rule 4 dash–9.1(b). Any lawyer referral service used by a lawyer must be a “qualified service” in that it must conform to the requirements of Rule 4 dash–9.1. In re Agron, 701 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Mo. banc 2024); See also Rule 4 dash–9.1(b). This requires the service to register with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (“OCDC”) and “demonstrate [to the OCDC] its compliance with the other requirements of Rule 4 dash–9.1 before commencing to operate.” Id. Rule 4 dash–7.2(c), which addresses referral fees, only permits Lawyer to pay the fee if the service is a “qualified service” registered with OCDC. If the marketing company is not a “qualified service” registered with OCDC, Lawyer’s use of the service violates both Rules 4 dash–7.2(c) and 4 dash–9.1(b). Before using the lead generation service described above, Lawyer should contact OCDC and ascertain whether the marketing company is a “qualified service” registered with OCDC pursuant to Rule 4 dash–9.1.

Informal Opinions are ethics advisory opinions issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel to members of the Bar about Rule 4 (Rules of Professional Conduct), Rule 5 (Complaints and Proceedings Thereon), and Rule 6 (Fees to Practice Law) pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30(c). Written summaries of select Informal Opinions are published for informational purposes as determined by the Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri pursuant to Rule 5.30(c). Informal opinion summaries are advisory in nature and are not binding. These opinions are published as an educational service and do not constitute legal advice.

Request an Informal Opinion.