ABA Model Rules 第 7.2(b)條 - 律師服務網路媒合平台之倫理問題

(1)支付合理的廣告或通訊費用；(2)支付非營利或合格律師仲介服務之通常費用。合格律師仲

潛在當事人的保護機制最好能與ABA Model Supreme Court Rules Governing Lawyer Referral and Information Service（以下簡稱「仲介服務模範規定」），與Model Lawyer Referral and Information Service Quality Assurance Act對仲介服務所訂的 4 項核心標準一致，包含：(1) 開放所有律師參加，只要其：具備律師執照、適格、達到仲介服務為保護潛在當事人而對律師資格要求所訂之合理客觀標準；(2)要求每一位參與仲介服務的律師投保合理適當之專業責任保險；(3)以合理的方式評估消費者的滿意程度，並處理消費者之抱怨；(4)不推薦對擁有、

61 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.2(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services except that a lawyer may (1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service. A qualified lawyer referral service is a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority; Rule 7.2(b)(1) 允許之廣告或傳播型態包含：紙本律師名冊(directory listings)、線上律師名冊、報紙廣告、電視、廣播、網域名稱(domain name)登記、贊助費、網路廣告條幅(banner ads)、集體廣告等。MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R.7.2, Comment [5].

62 Kathryn A. Thompson, Client Web Sites And The Lawyer Ethics Rules: What Your Client Says About You Can Hurt You, 16NO.4PROF.LAW.1, 5 (2005).

63 See http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/policy/ethics_2000_commission/e2k_72_202.

html (last visited July 30, 2011). 1983 年版本（經劃線刪除者）為: pay the usual charges of a “not-for-profit” lawyer referral service or legal service organization. 2002 年版本為: pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a

“not-for-profit or qualified” lawyer referral service. A qualified lawyer referral service is a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority. 另有論者指出，ABA Model Rules 第 5.4 條未區分非律師為營利或非營利，若律師為獲得案件而支付非營利仲介服務費用，類似於支付仲介費，即與該仲介服務分享費用，則屬第 5.4 條所禁止之行為，不論該仲介服務為營利或非營利。Ronald D. Rotunda, John S. Dzienkowski, LEGAL ETHICS - THE LAWYER'S DESKBOOK ON PROF’L RESP., Law. Deskbk. Prof. Resp. § 7.2–3 (2011-12 ed.), § 7.2–3(d).

64 ABA Ethics 2000 Commission, February 2002 Report, Rule 7.2: Advertising, Model Rule 7.2 Reporter's Explanation of Changes, TEXT: 4. Paragraph (b)(2): Modify to permit lawyers to pay the usual charges of "a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service", http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/policy/ethics_2000_

commission/e2k_72_202.html (last visited July 30, 2011).

66 ABA Ethics 2000 Commission, supra note 64. Because the need for special regulation arises from the prevailing public perception of lawyer referral services, this special regulatory regime is only applicable to a for-profit organization that holds itself out to the public as a lawyer referral service. ", and see Comment 6: “A lawyer referral service, on the other hand, is any organization that holds itself out to the public as a lawyer referral service. Such referral services are understood by laypersons to be consumer-oriented organizations that provide unbiased referrals to lawyers with appropriate experience in the subject matter of the representation and afford other client protections, such as complaint procedures or malpractice insurance requirements.”

67 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R.5.3.

68 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R.7.2, Comment [7]

69 ABA CPR Policy Implementation Committee, Variations of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.2 Advertising, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/pic/7_2.authcheckdam.pdf, As of Feb. 14,2011 (last visited July 30, 2011). 本文初步整理結果，開放合格仲介的州有：AK, CA, CT, DE, FL, ME, MO, MT, NE, NM, OH, OK, SC, SD, VT, WV, WY；未區分仲介服務為營利或非營利的州有：MS, NV, PA, TN, UT。

70 Dreiling, supra note 57, at 28-29.

71 South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee, Ethics Advisory Opinion 01-03, 2001 March, http://www.scbar.org/

MemberResources/EthicsAdvisoryOpinions/OpinionView/ArticleId/644/Ethics-Advisory-Opinion-01-03.aspx(last visited July 30, 2011). Dreiling, supra note 50, at 4.

72 德州專業行為準則第 7.03(b)條規定，律師得例外支付通常費用予符合德州律師仲介服務品質保證法(Texas Lawyer Referral Service Quality Assurance Act)規定的仲介服務，而該法第 952.102 條規定，律師仲介服務必須由政府經營或為非營利單位。TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.03 (b) A lawyer shall not pay, give, or offer to pay or give anything of value to a person not licensed to practice law for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective clients to, any lawyer or firm, except that a lawyer may pay … the usual charges of a lawyer referral service that meets the requirements of Occupational Code Title 5, Subtitle B, Chapter 952(Texas Lawyer Referral Service Quality Assurance Act). Texas Lawyer Referral Act Section 952.101 A person may not operate a lawyer referral service in Texas unless such person obtains a certificate from the State Bar of Texas. Section 952.102 To

付營利性網站費用違反其倫理規範。北卡羅萊那州之倫理規範亦未開放營利性仲介 ⁷⁵，惟其律師公會採取較開放之態度，其認為，網路平台不符合非營利之限制，不過，網路平台嚴格來說並不是仲介，且沒有符合該標準也不該禁止律師參與⁷⁶。

（五）聯邦貿易委員會政策規劃處、競爭局及經濟局(FTC)對網路媒合平台之意見

2006 年FTC曾就律師是否應參與網路平台表示意見 ⁷⁷。FTC認為，網路平台讓消費者以較低成本，比較不同律師的收費與服務品質，若使用傳統律師名冊，消費者需要自行找出可

obtain a certificate, the lawyer referral service must, among other requirements, be operated either by a governmental entity or a non-profit entity.

73 WASHINGTON RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.2(c): A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may …may pay the charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service …

74 RHODE ISLAND RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.2 (c) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services except that a lawyer may (2) pay the usual charges of …a not-for-profit lawyer referral service;… Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Opinion No. 2005-01, February 24, 2005.

75 NORTH CAROLINA RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R.7.2(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services except that a lawyer may (2) pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service…

76 North Carolina State Bar, supra note 52.

77 Federal Trade Commission Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Economics, Bureau of Competition (“FTC”), Re:

Comments on a Request for Ethics Opinion Regarding Online Attorney Matching Programs, 2006, http://www.ftc.gov/

os/2006/05/V060017CommentsonaRequestforAnEthicsOpinionImage.pdf (last visited July 30, 2011).

78 FTC, id, at 4.

79 不過 David Hricik 教授認為，FTC 委員會的意見實際上很難限制德州律師公會發佈禁令，因為律師與線上仲 介之間的約定傳統上由州管轄，除非「不得分攤費用」的規定造成極大損害，聯邦競爭法才可能適用。Dreiling, supra note 50, at 4.

（六）ABA 仲介服務之專門規範

律師業發達的美國，並未一律禁止律師仲介服務。相反的，自 1937 年Los Angeles County Bar Association建立仲介服務開始 ⁸⁰，合法的律師仲介組織在美國存在至少有 70 年以上。仲介服務出現的原因為回應中產階級無法找到適合律師之需求，其目的為協助有能力支付一般

(1) 合格的(qualified)律師仲介服務應為公共利益(public interest)經營，其應提供其他可能協助客戶的機關（如政府、消費者保護機關等）之相關資訊，並提供仲介服務、義務法律服務計畫(pro bono programs)及其他法律服務提供者。仲介服務可由私人經營，只要其主要目的為公共服務⁸³。

(2) 仲介服務之會員資格應該放給各管轄區內所有具備執業資格、符合仲介服務要求之律師。會員資格不得限於特定地理區域或法律領域。會員費之數額必須合理⁸⁴。

(3) 仲介服務必須要求其會員投保職業責任保險(malpractice insurance)或提供財力證明 ⁸⁵。 (4) 仲介服務及獲仲介之律師向客戶收取之總費用，不得高於該客戶未使用仲介服務（及以

80 Michael D. Margolin, California Lawyer Referral Services: What They Are, How They Operate And What They Can Do For You, 2 J.LEGAL ADVOC.&PRAC. 83, 83 (2000).

(8) 依據仲介服務所在管轄區之法律，仲介服務除收取仲介費(referral fee)外，得另外向獲仲介之律師收取律師費之一定比例。惟該費用（來自律師費者）僅得用於仲介服務的合理營運支出、或資助仲介服務或仲介服務所贊助組織之公共服務活動⁹⁰。

(9) 仲介服務必須建立不同類別的專門小組(subject matter panels)，並建立小組成員資格的最低標準。專門小組所需的數目，將視各仲介服務所服務的社群之需求，而有所不同。小組成員之資格要求應包含「於所需法律領域，具備充足經驗」，以確保該律師之能力。仲介服務應要求律師提交其符合仲介服務所訂規定之證明，證明文件可包含宣誓書(affidavit)或確認書 (affirmation form)形式之證明 ⁹¹。

2. 「加州律師公會關於加州律師仲介服務之規定與規則，包含律師仲介服務之最低標準」

加州對於律師仲介服務的規範訂於「商業與職業法(Business and Professions Code.)」⁹²，該法規定，任何個人或單位，若未能達到本法所訂要求，不得以仲介客戶予律師為營運目的；

律師亦不得接受非法仲介業者仲介之客戶 ⁹³。依「商業與職業法」之授權 ⁹⁴，律師公會在經過最高法院許可後，應建立仲介業者之相關規則，而相關規則應包含之主要項目與上述ABA

「仲介服務模範規定」相同，如：會員資格應該開放 ⁹⁵；欲成為合格律師仲介服務之單位應向州律師公會申請⁹⁶，並支付申請費及更新手續費(renewal fee)，其數額由公會合理認定之，

公會在收取費用時應綜合考量該仲介服務之狀況，包括其性質屬營利或非營利 ⁹⁷；符合標準者，律師公會將核發證明(Certification)；律師仲介服務應持續設立活動協助資源較缺乏之民眾⁹⁸；合格仲介服務之律師應投保專業責任保險 ⁹⁹。

依商業與職業法之授權，加州律師公會訂定「加州律師公會關於加州內律師仲介服務之規定與規則，包含律師仲介服務之最低標準(Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of California

Pertaining to Lawyer Referral Services Including Minimum Standards for Lawyer Referral Services in California)」¹⁰⁰，該規定於 1997 年 1 月 1 日生效。

（七）ABA 倫理委員會－科技與廣告之初步提案

今(2011)年 6 月 29 日，ABA倫理委員會 20/20（ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20¹⁰¹，以下簡稱「 ABA委員會」）發佈關於律師使用科技工具發展客戶之初步提案(Initial Draft Proposal –Technology and Advertising)¹⁰²，該委員會肯定網路工具的正面功能¹⁰³，其認為，律師經常使用網路傳播法律資訊及吸引新客戶，具有教育社會大眾之正面效果，社會大眾可知

100 The State Bar of California, Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of California Pertaining to Lawyer Referral Services Including Minimum Standards for a Lawyer Referral Service in California, http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.

aspx?fileticket=mKEKxX4ytUA%3d&tabid=1149 (last visited July 30, 2011).

101 ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, Ethics 20/20 News, NEW: A message from Commission on Ethics 20/20 Co-Chairs, Jamie S. Gorelick and Michael Traynor: Release of Commission's Initial Draft Proposal: Lawyers’ Use of Technology and Client Development, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/aba_commission _on_ethics_20_20.html (last visited July 30, 2011).

102 ABANow, ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 Recommends No New Restrictions on Lawyer Advertising: Initial Proposal Suggests Only Clarifications to Select Rules, http://www.abanow.org/2011/06/aba-commission-on-ethics-2020 -recommends-no-new-restrictions-on-lawyer-advertising/; ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, Initial Draft Proposal –Technology and Advertising, June 29, 2011 (hereinafter “Initial Draft Proposal”), http://www.abanow.org/

wordpress/wp-content/files_flutter/1309382231technology_client_proposal_062911.pdf (last visited July 30, 2011).

（Initial Draft Proposal 包含 Resolution、Report 兩部分，以下所引頁數為個別文件上的頁數）。

103 Initial Draft Proposal, supra note 102, Report, at 1.

104 Initial Draft Proposal, supra note 102, Resolution, at 1. Proposed amendments Rule 1.18(a) A person who discusses communicates with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship and has a reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to consider forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.（底線部分為提案內容）。提案內容將第 1.8 條「潛在客戶(prospective client)」的定義為更細緻之規定，消費者除了和律師「溝通(communicate)」成立客戶－律師關係的可能外，尚須「可合理期待該律師

並確保社會大眾不會誤會透過電子通訊設備與律師溝通可能產生的結果。Initial Draft Proposal, supra note 102, Report 2-4. 關於網路諮詢與律師和當事人關係之建立，可參考陳鋕雄、夏禾，律師與當事人關係建立之倫理問題－美國與台灣之比較，法學新論，第 28 期，頁 20-21，2011 年 2 月。

105 Initial Draft Proposal, supra note 102, Resolution, at 7. Proposed amendments Rule 7.3, Comment [1] A solicitation is a targeted communication initiated by the lawyer that is directed to a specific potential client and that offers to provide, or can reasonably be understood as offering to provide, legal services. In contrast, a lawyer’s communication typically does not constitute a solicitation if it is directed to the general public, such as through a billboard, an Internet banner advertisement, a website or a television commercial, or if it is in response to a request for information or is

之疑慮。

就Model Rules第 7.2 條的部分，ABA委員會說明該條實際上允許律師與非營利或合格的仲介服務分配(divide)客戶費(client fee)，但費用之用途限於固定的(set)廣告活動(advertising programs)，如電視或報紙廣告¹⁰⁶。ABA委員會注意到，網路使廣告與仲介服務之界線日益模糊，新的行銷工具，如Legal Match, Total Attorneys, Groupon¹⁰⁷, Lawyers.com無法直接歸入舊有「廣告或仲介服務」的分類中，故而律師在接到一位客戶(pay for each client lead)後支付該

在文檔中律師服務網路媒合平台之倫理問題—以法易通事件為中心 (頁 24-0)