Innovation of Note
In the Fall of 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court created the “Indiana Innovation Initiative.”
The Innovation Initiative was established by Supreme Court order to:
- analyze the research on justice reform
- assess the impact of reform efforts in other states
- identify, map, and analyze commonalities and differences in subject matter and process in criminal, civil, family, and child welfare justice systems
- identify innovative strategies, such as technology, to manage different case types
- develop specialized procedures for different types of cases involving differing levels of complexity
- evaluate the potential and actual impacts of specialized procedures
- launch pilot projects to test procedures and determine the scalable value of those procedures
- collaborate with and support the Coalition for Court Access (CCA) in areas where the Initiative’s work overlaps with the CCA’s objectives
Members will make recommendations to the Indiana Supreme Court for best practices surrounding Indiana’s judicial system structures and procedures.
Change Log Entries
Differences from ABA Model Rules
|Rule 1.2(c) Limited Scope
|Minor Clerical Changes
|Rule 5.4(a) Fee-Sharing
|Rules 5.4(b)-(d) Non-Lawyer Ownership
|Same as Model Rule
|Rule 5.5. Unauthorized Practice of Law
|Rule 5.7 Law Related Services
|Same as Model Rule
|Rule 6.5 Limited Scope
|Same as Model Rule
|Rule 7.2(b) Lawyer Referral
|Cloud Computing Advisory
|Technology Competency Rules
ABA Rule 1.2(c) (Limited Scope)
Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer
(c) A lawyer may limit the scope and objectives of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
 The scope of services to be provided by a lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the terms under which the lawyer’s services are made available to the client. When a lawyer has been retained by an insurer to represent an insured, for example, the representation may be limited to matters related to the insurance coverage. A limited representation may be appropriate because the client has limited objectives for the representation. In addition, the terms upon which representation is undertaken may exclude specific means that might otherwise be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. Such limitations may exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly or that the lawyer regards as repugnant, unethical, or imprudent.
 Although this Rule affords the lawyer and client substantial latitude to limit the representation, the limitation must be reasonable under the circumstances. If, for example, a client’s objective is limited to securing general information about the law the client needs in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, the lawyer and client may agree that the lawyer’s services will be limited to a brief telephone consultation. Such a limitation, however, would not be reasonable if the time allotted was not sufficient to yield advice upon which the client could rely. Although an agreement for a limited representation does not exempt a lawyer from the duty to provide competent representation, the limitation is a factor to be considered when determining the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See Rule 1.1.
 All agreements concerning a lawyer’s representation of a client must accord with the Rules of Professional Conduct and other law. See, e.g., Rules 1.1, 1.8 and 5.6.
Indianapolis Podiatry, P.C. v. Efroymson, 720 N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (by disclosing to one client potential conflict with other client and limiting representation to exclude claims between the two, firm avoided breaching duty of loyalty); aba
Flatow v. Ingalls, 932 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (plaintiff suing former employer for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and defamation hired law firm to draft summary judgment motion and reply brief on defamation claim only; firm had no responsibility to respond to employer’s cross-motion for summary judgment)
ABA Rule 5.4(a) (Fee-sharing)
Rule 5.4. Professional Independence of a Lawyer
(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; and
(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.
1] The provisions of this Rule express traditional limitations on sharing fees. These limitations are to protect the lawyer’s professional independence of judgment. Where someone other than the client pays the lawyer’s fee or salary, or recommends employment of the lawyer, that arrangement does not modify the lawyer’s obligation to the client. As stated in paragraph (c), such arrangements should not interfere with the lawyer’s professional judgment.
In re Hear, 755 N.E.2d 579 (Ind. 2001) (lawyer shared fees from debt-collection business with nonlawyer who recruited clients)
ABA Rule 5.4(b – d) Non-lawyer ownership
Same as Model Rule.
 This Rule also expresses traditional limitations on permitting a third party to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering legal services to another. See also Rule 1.8(f) (lawyer may accept compensation from a third party as long as there is no interference with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment and the client gives informed consent).
Ind. Ethics Op. 2004-1 (2004) (lawyer may not participate in bank’s program to refer its estate planning customers to him exclusively, in exchange for which he would offer them discount)
ABA Rule 5.5 (UPL)
Rule 5.5. Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law
(c) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction, but is admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:
(1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter;
(2) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized;
(3) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice and are not services for which the forum requires temporary admission; or
(4) are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.
(d) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction, but is admitted in another United States jurisdiction, or in a foreign jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction if:
(1) the lawyer does not establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law and the legal services are provided to the lawyer’s employer or its organizational affiliates and are not services for which the forum requires temporary admission; or
(2) the services are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.
Paragraph (c) applies to lawyers who are admitted to practice law in any United States jurisdiction, which includes the District of Columbia and any state, territory or commonwealth of the United States. The word “admitted” in paragraph (c) contemplates that the lawyer is authorized to practice in the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted and excludes a lawyer who while technically admitted is not authorized to practice, because, for example, the lawyer is on inactive status. Paragraph (d) applies to lawyers admitted to practice in a United States jurisdiction and to lawyers admitted in a foreign jurisdiction.
 Paragraph (c)(1) recognizes that the interests of clients and the public are protected if a lawyer admitted only in another jurisdiction associates with a lawyer licensed to practice in this jurisdiction. For this paragraph to apply, however, the lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction must actively participate in and share responsibility for the representation of the client.
 Lawyers not admitted to practice generally in a jurisdiction may be authorized by law or order of a tribunal or an administrative agency to appear before the tribunal or agency. This authority may be granted pursuant to formal rules governing admission pro hac vice or pursuant to informal practice of the tribunal or agency. Under paragraph (c)(2), a lawyer does not violate this Rule when the lawyer appears before a tribunal or agency pursuant to such authority. To the extent that a court rule or other law of this jurisdiction requires a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction to obtain admission pro hac vice before appearing before a tribunal or administrative agency, this Rule requires the lawyer to obtain that authority.
 Paragraph (c)(2) also provides that a lawyer rendering services in this jurisdiction on a temporary basis does not violate this Rule when the lawyer engages in conduct in anticipation of a proceeding or hearing in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is authorized to practice law or in which the lawyer reasonably expects to be admitted pro hac vice. Examples of such conduct include meetings with the client, interviews of potential witnesses, and the review of documents. Similarly, a lawyer admitted only in another jurisdiction may engage in conduct temporarily in this jurisdiction in connection with pending litigation in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is or reasonably expects to be authorized to appear, including taking depositions in this jurisdiction.
 When a lawyer has been or reasonably expects to be admitted to appear before a court or administrative agency, paragraph (c)(2) also permits conduct by lawyers who are associated with that lawyer in the matter, but who do not expect to appear before the court or administrative agency. For example, subordinate lawyers may conduct research, review documents, and attend meetings with witnesses in support of the lawyer responsible for the litigation.
 Paragraph (c)(3) permits a lawyer admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction to perform services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction if those services are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice. The lawyer, however, must obtain admission pro hac vice in the case of a court-annexed arbitration or mediation or otherwise if court rules or law so require.
 Paragraph (c)(4) permits a lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction to provide certain legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted but are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3). These services include both legal services and services that nonlawyers may perform but that are considered the practice of law when performed by lawyers.
 Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) require that the services arise out of or be reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted. A variety of factors evidence such a relationship. The lawyer’s client may have been previously represented by the lawyer, or may be resident in or have substantial contacts with the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted. The matter, although involving other jurisdictions, may have a significant connection with that jurisdiction. In other cases, significant aspects of the lawyer’s work might be conducted in that jurisdiction or a significant aspect of the matter may involve the law of that jurisdiction. The necessary relationship might arise when the client’s activities or the legal issues involve multiple jurisdictions, such as when the officers of a multinational corporation survey potential business sites and seek the services of their lawyer in assessing the relative merits of each. In addition, the services may draw on the lawyer’s recognized expertise developed through the regular practice of law on behalf of clients in matters involving a particular body of federal, nationally uniform, foreign, or international law.
 Paragraph (d) identifies two circumstances in which a lawyer who is admitted to practice in another United States or a foreign jurisdiction, and is not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis. Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), a lawyer who is admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction and who establishes an office or other systematic or continuous presence in this jurisdiction must become admitted to practice law generally in this jurisdiction.
 Paragraph (d)(1) applies to a United States or foreign lawyer who is employed by a client to provide legal services to the client or its organizational affiliates, i.e., entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with the employer. This paragraph does not authorize the provision of personal legal services to the employer’s officers or employees. The paragraph applies to in-house corporate lawyers, government lawyers and others who are employed to render legal services to the employer. The lawyer’s ability to represent the employer outside the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed generally serves the interests of the employer and does not create an unreasonable risk to the client and others because the employer is well situated to assess the lawyer’s qualifications and the quality of the lawyer’s work.
 If an employed lawyer establishes an office or other systematic presence in this jurisdiction for the purpose of rendering legal services to the employer, the lawyer shall be subject to registration or other requirements, including assessments for client protection funds and mandatory continuing legal education. See, Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 6, sections 2 through 5.
 Paragraph (d)(2) recognizes that a lawyer may provide legal services in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is not licensed when authorized to do so by federal or other law, which includes statute, court rule, executive regulation or judicial precedent.
 A lawyer who practices law in the State of Indiana pursuant to paragraphs (c) or (d) or otherwise is subject to the disciplinary authority of the State of Indiana. See Rule 8.5(a).
 In some circumstances, a lawyer who practices law in the State of Indiana pursuant to paragraphs (c) or (d) may have to inform the client that the lawyer is not licensed to practice law in the State of Indiana. For example, that may be required when the representation occurs primarily in the State of Indiana and requires knowledge of the law of the State of Indiana. See Rule 1.4(b).
 Paragraphs (c) and (d) do not authorize communications advertising legal services to prospective clients in the State of Indiana by lawyers who are admitted to practice in other jurisdictions. Whether and how lawyers may communicate the availability of their services to prospective clients in the State of Indiana is governed by Rules 7.2 to 7.5.
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Wills, 717 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. 1999) (“[t]he modern statements of the ‘rule’ that a corporation may not practice law typically reflect no more than the point that only a natural person can be admitted to the bar”).
In re Anonymous, 787 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 2003) (Indiana prohibits suspended or disbarred lawyer from maintaining presence or occupying office where practice of law conducted “so the public is not misled into believing that the attorney is still authorized to practice law”)
State ex rel. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm’n v. Farmer, 978 N.E.2d 409 (Ind. 2012) (Ohio lawyer’s occasional visits and investigation for convicted Indiana murder defendant did not result in more than “temporary” presence and therefore did not constitute unauthorized practice of law aba
In re Anonymous, 932 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 2010) (local counsel signed appearance with out-of-state lawyer and allowed him to appear in court, sign answers to interrogatories, and take depositions in state court without ensuring he was admitted pro hac vice)
In re Baars, 683 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. 1997) (sentencing suspended lawyer to thirty days in jail and fining him $200 for engaging in practice of law.)
In re Contempt of Fox, 796 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. 2003) (ordering suspended lawyer to pay $500 and costs of proceedings for practicing law by, among other activities, appearing at sentencing hearing for criminal defendant)
In re Perrello, 386 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. 1979) (“The undertaking to minister to the legal problems of another creates an attorney-client relationship without regard to whether the services are actually performed by the one so undertaking the responsibility or are delegated or subcontracted to another”)
Prof’l Adjusters Inc. v. Tandon, 433 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 1982) (nonlawyer who was neither agent nor employee of insurance company engaged in unauthorized practice of law by negotiating, for fee, settlement of another’s claim for loss or damages)
State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. United Fin. Sys. Corp., 926 N.E.2d 8 (Ind. 2010) (nonlawyers’ preparation of wills and trusts constitutes unauthorized practice; “we have held that preparing and drafting a will, and giving advice regarding the contents and effect of a will, constitute the practice of law”)
State v. Owen, 486 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 1986) (merely entering into relationship whereby nonlawyer is hired to give legal advice to client constitutes unauthorized practice)
Waugh v. Kelley, 555 N.E.2d 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (preparation and filing of state and federal income tax returns does not constitute practice of law)
Fink v. Peden, 17 N.E.2d 95 (1938) The practice of law is defined in 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, 703, Section 3(g), as follows: ‘The general meaning of the term, ‘practice law’ or ‘practice of law’, is of common knowledge, although the boundaries of its definition may be indefinite as to some transactions. As generally understood, it is the doing or performing of services in a court of justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure; but it is not confined to performing services in an action or proceeding pending in courts of justice, and, in a larger sense, it includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be pending in a court. To ‘practice law’ is to carry on the business of an attorney at law; to do or practice that which an attorney or counselor at law is authorized to do and practice; to exercise the calling or profession of the law; usually for the purpose of gaining a livelihood, or at least for gain; to make it one’s business to act for, and by the warrant of, others in legal formalities, negotiations, or proceedings.’ (Court’s italics.)
ABA Rule 5.7 (Law Related Services)
Same as Model Rule.
 When a lawyer performs law-related services or controls an organization that does so or uses a law license to promote an organization or otherwise creates a basis for a belief that the client may be dealing with an attorney (such as where a person uses “J.D.” on business cards or stationary or hangs framed law degrees or court admissions on office walls), there exists the potential for ethical problems. Principal among these is the possibility that the person for whom the law-related services are performed fails to understand that the services may not carry with them the protections normally afforded as part of the client-lawyer relationship. The recipient of the law-related services may expect, for example, that the protection of client confidences, prohibitions against representation of persons with conflicting interests, and obligations of a lawyer to maintain professional independence apply to the provision of law-related services when that may not be the case.
 Rule 5.7 applies to the provision of law-related services by a lawyer even when the lawyer does not provide any legal services to the person for whom the law-related services are performed and whether the law-related services are performed through a law firm or a separate entity. The Rule identifies the circumstances in which all of the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the provision of law-related services. Even when those circumstances do not exist, however, the conduct of a lawyer involved in the provision of law-related services is subject to those Rules that apply generally to lawyer conduct, regardless of whether the conduct involves the provision of legal services. See, e.g., Rule 8.4.
 When law-related services are provided by a lawyer under circumstances that are not distinct from the lawyer’s provision of legal services to clients, the lawyer in providing the law-related services must adhere to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct as provided in paragraph (a)(1). Even when the law-related and legal services are provided in circumstances that are distinct from each other, for example through separate entities or different support staff within the law firm, the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the lawyer as provided in paragraph (a)(2) unless the lawyer takes reasonable measures to assure that the recipient of the law-related services knows that the services are not legal services and that the protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not apply.
 Law-related services also may be provided through an entity that is distinct from that through which the lawyer provides legal services. If the lawyer individually or with others has control of such an entity’s operations, the Rule requires the lawyer to take reasonable measures to assure that each person using the services of the entity knows that the services provided by the entity are not legal services and that the Rules of Professional Conduct that relate to the client-lawyer relationship do not apply. A lawyer’s control of an entity extends to the ability to direct its operation. Whether a lawyer has such control will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.
 When a client-lawyer relationship exists with a person who is referred by a lawyer to a separate law-related service entity controlled by the lawyer, individually or with others, the lawyer must comply with Rule 1.8(a).
 In taking the reasonable measures referred to in paragraph (a)(2) to assure that a person using law-related services understands the practical effect or significance of the inapplicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyer should communicate to the person receiving the law-related services, in a manner sufficient to assure that the person understands the significance of the fact, that the relationship of the person to the business entity will not be a client-lawyer relationship. The communication should be made before entering into an agreement for provision of or providing law-related services, and preferably should be in writing.
 The burden is upon the lawyer to show that the lawyer has taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to communicate the desired understanding. For instance, a sophisticated user of law-related services, such as a publicly held corporation, may require a lesser explanation than someone unaccustomed to making distinctions between legal services and law-related services, such as an individual seeking tax advice from a lawyer-accountant or investigative services in connection with a lawsuit.
 Regardless of the sophistication of potential recipients of law-related services, a lawyer should take special care to keep separate the provision of law-related and legal services in order to minimize the risk that the recipient will assume that the law-related services are legal services. The risk of such confusion is especially acute when the lawyer renders both types of services with respect to the same matter. Under some circumstances the legal and law-related services may be so closely entwined that they cannot be distinguished from each other, and the requirement of disclosure and consultation imposed by paragraph (a)(2) of the Rule cannot be met. In such a case a lawyer will be responsible for assuring that both the lawyer’s conduct and, to the extent required by Rule 5.3, that of nonlawyer employees in the distinct entity that the lawyer controls complies in all respects with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
 A broad range of economic and other interests of clients may be served by lawyers’ engaging in the delivery of law-related services. Examples of law-related services include providing title insurance, financial planning, accounting, real estate counseling, legislative lobbying, economic analysis, social work, psychological counseling, tax preparation, and medical or environmental consulting.
 When a lawyer is obliged to accord the recipients of such services the protections of those Rules that apply to the client-lawyer relationship, the lawyer must take special care to heed the proscriptions of the Rules addressing conflict of interest (Rules 1.7 through 1.11, especially Rules 1.7(a)(2) and 1.8(a), (b) and (f)), and to scrupulously adhere to the requirements of Rule 1.6 relating to disclosure of confidential information. Where the provision of law-related services is subject to these Rules, the promotion of the law-related services must also in all respects comply with Rules 7.2, through 7.5, dealing with advertising and solicitation. In that regard, lawyers should take special care to identify the obligations that may be imposed as a result of a jurisdiction’s decisional law.
 When the full protections of all of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the provision of law-related services, principles of law external to the Rules, for example, the law of principal and agent, govern the legal duties owed to those receiving the services. Those other legal principles may establish a different degree of protection for the recipient with respect to confidentiality of information, conflicts of interest and permissible business relationships with clients. See also Rule 8.4 (Misconduct).
Ind. Ethics Op. 2002-1 (2002) (lawyer must comply with lawyer ethics rules in operating his financial planning business if he cannot meet “substantial burden” of keeping business separate and distinct, and ensure customers understand they are not receiving legal services)
ABA Rule 6.5 (Court annexed/Non-profit limited scope)
Same as Model Rule.
 Legal services organizations, courts and various nonprofit organizations have established programs through which lawyers provide short-term limited legal services — such as advice or the completion of legal forms — that will assist persons to address their legal problems without further representation by a lawyer. In these programs, such as legal-advice hotlines, advice-only clinics or pro se counseling programs, a client-lawyer relationship is established, but there is no expectation that the lawyer’s representation of the client will continue beyond the limited consultation. Such programs are normally operated under circumstances in which it is not feasible for a lawyer to systematically screen for conflicts of interest as is generally required before undertaking a representation. See, e.g., Rules 1.7, 1.9 and 1.10.
 A lawyer who provides short-term limited legal services pursuant to this Rule must secure the client’s informed consent to the limited scope of the representation. See Rule 1.2(c). If a short-term limited representation would not be reasonable under the circumstances, the lawyer may offer advice to the client but must also advise the client of the need for further assistance of counsel. Except as provided in this Rule, the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c), are applicable to the limited representation.
 Because a lawyer who is representing a client in the circumstances addressed by this Rule ordinarily is not able to check systematically for conflicts of interest, paragraph (a) requires compliance with Rules 1.7 or 1. 9(a) only if the lawyer knows that the representation presents a conflict of interest for the lawyer, and with Rule 1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is disqualified by Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) in the matter.
 Because the limited nature of the services significantly reduces the risk of conflicts of interest with other matters being handled by the lawyer’s firm, paragraph (b) provides that Rule 1.10 is inapplicable to a representation governed by this Rule except as provided by paragraph (a)(2). Paragraph (a)(2) requires the participating lawyer to comply with Rule 1.10 when the lawyer knows that the lawyer’s firm is disqualified by Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a). By virtue of paragraph (b), however, a lawyer’s participation in a short-term limited legal services program will not preclude the lawyer’s firm from undertaking or continuing the representation of a client with interests adverse to a client being represented under the program’s auspices. Nor will the personal disqualification of a lawyer participating in the program be imputed to other lawyers participating in the program.
 If, after commencing a short-term limited representation in accordance with this Rule, a lawyer undertakes to represent the client in the matter on an ongoing basis, Rules 1.7, 1.9(a) and 1.10 become applicable.
ABA Rule 7.2(b) (Lawyer referral)
Rule 7.2. Advertising
(b)A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending or advertising 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 described in Rule 7.3(d);
(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17; and
(4) refer clients to another lawyer or a non-lawyer professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if
(i) the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive, and
(ii) the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement.
 Lawyers are not permitted to pay others for channeling professional work. Paragraph (b)(1), however, allows a lawyer to pay for advertising and communications permitted by this Rule, including the costs of print directory listings, on-line directory listings, newspaper ads, television and radio airtime, domain-name registrations, sponsorship fees, banner ads, and group advertising. A lawyer may compensate employees, agents, and vendors who are engaged to provide marketing or client-development services, such as publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staff, and website designers. See Rule 5.3 for the duties of lawyers and law firms with respect to the conduct of non-lawyers who prepare marketing materials for them.
Ind. Ethics Op. 2008-4 (2008) (lawyer who donates services at charity auction must ensure no ongoing professional relationship with sponsoring charity lest donation be deemed thing of value given in return for recommendation of employment)
Ind. Ethics Op. 2012-1 (2012) (percentage of lawyer’s fee retained by website company bears no relation to reasonable cost of advertising),
No available opinions.
Comment to Rule 1.1
 To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with the technology relevant to the lawyer’s practice, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject