View the Formal Ethics Opinion in Full Here
The Formal Ethics Opinion 2015 FEO 3 rules that a lawyer may not offer a computer tablet to a prospective client in a direct mail solicitation letter. A lawyer is not permitted to make false or misleading statements or communications about him or his services as per Rule 7.1.
In the instance with the computer tablet, even with a disclaimer stating that the tablet is on loan and must be returned at the conclusion of the representation, the sending this solicitation through direct mail is not permissible. A lawyer is prohibited form engaging in in-person, live, or telephonic solicitation of prospective clients with whom he has no prior professional relationship and as such, under Rule 7.3, he may not use direct mail solicitation to induce a prospective client to call the office, either.
If the direct mail solicitation is sent to prospective clients known to be in need of legal services, no merchandise is offered, but once hired, the lawyer offers temporary use of a computer tablet, such conduct might be permissible. An attorney, under Rule 1.8(e) cannot provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation unless the lawyer advances court costs or expenses of litigation. A lawyer may loan a client a tablet if it is necessary to communicate with the lawyer or for collection of evidence, but it may not be a quid pro quo for hiring the lawyer. The client must understand it is not a gift, but a loan.