Some states have ethics opinions concerning listings in online legal referral services or directories. Some permit stict directory listings; some prohibit participation in for-profit online referral services. Please check with your state directly if you have any concerns about participation in online directories and referral services. Below are examples of ethics opinions concerning such listings and services available for free online.

• Arizona (State Bar of Arizona: 99-06, 6/99 (pdf)): This advisory opinion states that "Arizona lawyers may not ethically participate in an Internet service that sends legal questions from individuals to attorneys based upon the subject matter of the question" or "pay a fee for such referrals or give the service a portion of the legal fees earned from the referral."
• Iowa (Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct/Iowa State Bar Association: 00-07, 12/5/00): Iowa Board ruled that a law firm may not participate in or link to a company's publicly accessible electronic database, which included lawyer's names, biographies and areas of practice--and essentially amounted to an online referral service--since the program did not meet the requirements of Iowa's rule governing lawyer referral services. Specifically, the database did not qualify as a "reputable" list or directory under the rules and failed to meet the requirement that it be primarily intended for the use of the legal profession.
  (Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct/Iowa State Bar Association: 97-11, 9/18/97): This opinion states that lawyers can sign up for referrals no matter the medium of communication. The referral organization must qualify under section DR 2-103(D) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
• Maine (The Professional Ethics Commission of the Board of Overseers of the Bar: 174, 10/10/00): Maine Board issued a four-part ruling addressing lawyer participation in an online legal service that allowed users to locate lawyers in different legal areas. The site generated revenue from user fees and non-lawyer advertising, and required that lawyer and user participants enter into agreements governing their participation. The Board ruled that: a) lawyer members are subject to Maine rules governing communications to the public relating to the provision of legal services, and as such are barred from membership if they know of any false or misleading communications on the web site; b) public communications by the web site constitute paid advertising under Maine rules, and are thus subject to relevant rules governing radio, television and Internet communications that require lawyers to approve and retain a pre-recording of any advertising; c) lawyers who participate in the web site under the existing fee structure do not violate Maine rules regarding paid referrals; and d) lawyers are prohibited from making the unqualified agreement called for in the member agreement that promises they will not withdraw from representation of a user without the user’s consent.
• Nebraska (Nebraska State Bar Association: 95-3, 1995): This opinion states that attorneys may not participate in for-profit online referral programs.
• New York (New York County Lawyers' Association: 721, 5/14/97): This opinion allows attorneys to provide an online directory listing with practice areas as long as the organization with the listing is not a "for-profit referral service." The listing is also considered to be among the group of advertisements where it is unnecessary to file a copy with the Discipliary Committee.
• North Carolina (North Carolina Bar Association: RPC 241, 10/16/96): This opinion states that attorneys may particpate in an online directory, not a referral service. The information provided must be "truthful and not misleading," especially as concerns jurisdiction and specialist status. A non-certified specialist may still list areas of concentration.
• Ohio (The Supreme Court of Ohio/Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline: 2000-5, 12/1/00): Ohio Board ruled that: a) an attorney may pay an online lawyer referral service a membership or registration fee as well as a fee calculated on a percentage of the legal fee earned, providing the lawyer referral service is in compliance with other applicable Ohio rules governing lawyer referral services; and b) whether an attorney may enter into a referral agreement with an out-of-state law firm operating an online referral service on the World Wide Web depends on whether the lawyer referral service is in compliance with other applicable Ohio rules governing lawyer referral services.
• Oregon (Oregon State Bar: 1994-137, 8/94 (pdf)): This formal opinion provides that attorneys may participate in the development of a self-help online database question-and-answer system to help consumers handle some legal matters on their own or decide if an attorney is necessary.
• Pennsylvania ( Pennsylvania Bar Association: 96-112, 8/27/96): This informal opinion allows for online advertising, but participation in an online lawyer referral service with a payment to the service for referrals would be in conflict with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.
• South Dakota (State Bar of South Dakota: 98-10, 1/12/99): This formal opinion prohibits a South Dakota attorney from participating in an online referral service where fees are paid to the service for advertising and referrals.
• Tennessee (Tennessee Bar Association: 99-F-144, 6/14/99): (Second opinion in list.) This formal opinion requires attorneys to comply with the certification of specialization disclosure requirements when listing areas of practice in online lawyer directories. The full text of the opinion is available to Tennessee Bar Association members here (requires login).

Below are links to resources on other technology and ethics-related topics: