消費者在閱讀律師的回覆後，可與該律師電話聯絡或當面諮詢，其後雙方可能成立律師
－當事人關係。LegalMatch 不會介入律師－當事人關係之成立，也與律師收費及其他資訊無 涉。
LegalMatch 在 網 站 上 說 明 其 非 仲 介 服 務 ， 而 是 一 種 新 的 雙 盲 媒 合 系 統 (double-blind matching system)36。LegalMatch不會仲介(refer)律師給消費者，而是由消費者主動提出問題，
有興趣的律師直接回覆消費者。由於不是仲介服務，LegalMatch不需向各州主管機關登記或 申請核准 37；律師支付LegalMatch付費也不會違反倫理規範禁止律師因他人推薦其服務支付 有價之物的限制，律師支付的費用屬正常的廣告費38。
35 LeaglMatch, Company Overview, http://www.legalmatch.com/attorneys/companyinfo.html (last visited July 30, 2011).
36 LeaglMatch, Legal Match Ethics FAQs, Q1, http://www.legalmatch.com/attorneys/ethicsFAQs.html (last visited July 30, 2011).
37 LeaglMatch, Legal Match Ethics FAQs, Q4, http://www.legalmatch.com/attorneys/ethicsFAQs.html (last visited July 30, 2011).
38 LeaglMatch, Legal Match Ethics FAQs, Q5, http://www.legalmatch.com/attorneys/ethicsFAQs.html (last visited July 30, 2011). LegalMatch 的年費約美金 4,000-20,000 元，依法律領域與地理區域而收費不同，且其並未開放給所有 律師加入。Steve Seidenberg, Web-Based Firm Offers an Easy But Pricey Way for Lawyers to Hook Up With Clients, 90-JAN A.B.A. J. 21, 21(2004).
12
39 William I. Weston, The Ethics of Advertising And Other Issues Related to Law Firm Web Sites, 2005PROF.LAW.69, 71(2005).
40 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.2(a) Subject to the requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.3, a lawyer may advertise services through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media.
41 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.2, Comment [2].
42 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.1 A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. 律師廣告 規 範 之 發 展 歷 程 ， 可 見 Stephen A. Bailey, Fooling Ourselves? An Ethical and Constitutional Analysis of Lawyer-To-Lawyer Advertising, 10 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 385, 398-409 (2009). 律師廣告效益之分析，可見 Christopher M. Mensoian, Bates, The Model Rules and Attorney Advertising, 32 MCGEORGE L.REV.77, 79 (2000).
43 王惠光，法理學講義，頁 185-186；朱蕙敏，律師廣告行為之思考，全國律師，2 卷 4 期，頁 92，1998 年 4 月號。
44 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R.7.3(a) A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted: (1) is a lawyer; or (2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.
45 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.3(c) Every written, recorded or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from a prospective client known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter shall include the words "Advertising Material" on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication is a person specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2).
46 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 8.4(a) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
47 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.3, Comment [1].律師親自招攬之弊端，包括挑起訴訟、誣告或貶損法律
13 strictly a referral service)，因為網路平台不會替消費者決定特定律師。網路平台的消費者與傳 統仲介服務被動的接受者不同，網路平台的消費者必須自行評估接收到的資訊，並做出選擇，
如此傳統仲介對消費者的可能傷害可被避免52。
羅德島州最高法院倫理顧問小組(Ethics Advisory Panel)認為，LegalMatch並非仲介服務。
LegalMatch沒有推薦、仲介或直接指定特定律師給消費者，且所有註冊律師都可以收到全部 消費者的提問；消費者可在收到律師回覆後，直接與其有興趣的律師聯絡。律師－當事人關 係是在網站外(off-line)成立，LegalMatch未參與，而且是由當事人主動53。
界的聲譽、詐騙或超收律師費、怠於善盡律師職責、虛偽不實陳述等，對民眾可能滋生不當影響而造成傷害，
所以律師以招攬方式拓展業務比以廣告拓展業務，受到更多阻礙。林利芝，前揭註 3，頁 145、154。關於律師 使用電子郵件及其他網路工具招攬客戶，可參考 Marc S. Moller, Michael E. Kerman, The 45-Day “No-Solicitation”
Rule In The Internet Age, 23 NO.4AIR &SPACE LAW.1, 15-17 (2011).
48 ABAMODEL SUP.CT.RULES GOVERNING LAW.REFERRAL &INFO.SERVICE,http://www.americanbar.org/groups/
lawyer_referral/policy.html. ABA 仲介服務專門規範未提供仲介服務之明確定義，而係指出仲介服務之主要功 能。Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar Association, Ethics Opinion 122: The Applicability of Colo. RPC 7.2 to Internet-Based Lawyer Marketing Program, http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/386/subID/26527/CETH%20/ (last visited July 30, 2011).
49 詳見本章第（六）節。
50 Geri L. Dreiling, Surfing for Lawyers: FTC Endorses Online Legal Matchmaking, 5 NO.29ABAJ.E-REPORT 4, 4 (2006).
51 各州意見整理可見本文附件二。
52 North Carolina State Bar, Formal Ethics Opinion 1, Participation in On-Line Legal Matching Service, April 23, 2004, http://www.ncbar.gov/ethics/printopinion.asp?id=683 (last visited July 30, 2011).
53 Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel, Opinion No. 2005-01, February 24, 2005.
14
認為網路平台屬仲介服務者則有德州、華盛頓州等。
德州最高法院專業倫理委員會曾於 2005 年發佈意見，其認為仲介的特徵是確認消費者需 要法律服務，其後媒合或聯絡適合的律師。如果網站僅提供各個律師的資訊，由消費者依照 自己的考量選擇律師，則該網站不是仲介服務，而是廣告；若網站利用律師提供的資訊（如 專長領域）進行尋找或篩選，其後推薦、建議或提供給消費者考慮，那該網站是仲介服務。
就網路平台而言，律師支付網路平台費用，換取與消費者聯絡進而獲得委任的機會；網路平 台蒐集消費者的法律問題並提供給支付費用的註冊律師，故該類網路平台是仲介服務54。
2006 年，德州律師公會專業倫理委員會(Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas)曾向聯邦貿易委員會政策規劃處、競爭局及經濟局(Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Competition, and Bureau of Economics, 以下簡稱FTC)提問律師是否 得參與律師服務網路媒合平台。FTC的結論為網路平台對消費者有利，若律師公會無法證明 消費者受有損害，不應禁止律師參與網路平台55。
其後，德州最高法院專業倫理委員會發布新意見 56，放寬對廣告之認定，私營網路服務 若符合一定標準，就不是違法的仲介，而是合法的廣告，律師得支付費用參加。合法廣告的 標準包含：
1. 消費者選擇律師的過程是依據雙方提供的資訊，且完全是透過電腦系統自動運作，不得行 使任何裁量。
2. 網路服務充分確保消費者知悉：a.只有付費給網路服務的律師才有機會回覆其問題；b.網 路服務對律師的服務品質不作任何陳述；網路服務不得宣稱其為仲介服務或使消費者誤導其 為篩選、仲介、推薦參加的律師。律師會員應全面開放，或者，如有數量或資格之限制，亦 應使消費者知悉。
3. 網路服務收取的費用是 Rule 7.03(b)的合理廣告費。
4. 網路服務不得以不合理的方式限制特定地理區域或法律領域的律師數量，進而造成推薦特 定律師之效果。
5. 律師透過網路服務寄送給消費者的初次訊息是廣告資訊，且訊息中需註明：本訊息包含廣 告資訊、系統依據消費者問題的地理區域與法律領域通知符合的律師、律師參與網路服務需 支付費用。
54 The Supreme Court of Texas Professional Ethics Committee, Opinion Number 561, August 2005, http://www.
legalethicstexas.com/pdf/Opinion%20561.pdf (last visited July 30, 2011).
55 FTC 意見請見本章第（五）節。
56 The Supreme Court of Texas Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas, Opinion Number 573, http://www.legalethicstexas.com/pdf/Opinion%20573.pdf (last visited July 30, 2011). 此份意見為 FTC 回覆德州律師 公會專業倫理委員會提問(May 26,2006)後作成。Opinion Number 561 一般性地禁止律師支付費用給營利性網路 媒合服務，但未論及該類網路服務若能符合一定標準，可使其符合德州律師倫理規範，此份意見討論的重點即 為設定使私營網路服務符合倫理的標準。
15
羅德島州專業行為準則審議小組則認為，律師支付年費給 LegalMatch 不違反第 5.4(a)條 本文規定，因為會員費是固定的(flat fee)，與律師有無獲得委任無關，且非自律師費抽成或與
提供超過行政的服務。Washington State Bar Association, Advisory Opinion: 2106, 2006, A lawyer`s participation in an online for-profit referral service, http://mcle.mywsba.org/IO/print.aspx?ID=1549 (last visited July 30, 2011).
Geri L. Dreiling, Choosing Up Sides: States Are Split on whether Attorneys May Take Part in Online Legal-Match Services,93-MAYA.B.A.J.28,29(2007).
58 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 5.4(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer's firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer's death, to the lawyer's estate or to one or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.17, pay to the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price; (3) a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement; and (4) a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.
59 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 5.4, Comment [1].
60 Ronald D. Rotunda, John S. Dzienkowski, LEGAL ETHICS -THE LAWYER'S DESKBOOK ON PROF’L RESP.LEGAL
ETHICS, Law. Deskbk. Prof. Resp. § 7.2–3 (2011-12 ed.), § 7.2–3(a).