Bar rules for buying MVA leads

Whether purchased motor vehicle accident leads are permissible under the professional conduct rules, where the line between an advertising fee and a prohibited referral fee actually sits, and what to get in writing from a vendor before the first lead arrives.

By Tarun Kapoor, Founder · Published 2026-07-30

The advertising fee vs. referral fee distinction

This is the whole question, and it is narrower than most buyers assume. ABA Model Rule 7.2(b) permits a lawyer to pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications. It prohibits giving anything of value to a person for recommendingthe lawyer’s services. The practical test that keeps a lead purchase on the right side of that line:

• The payment is a flat fee per lead or per unit of advertising — not a percentage of any recovery, and not contingent on whether the case is signed or what it settles for. Fee-splitting with a non-lawyer is prohibited in every U.S. jurisdiction, without exception.
• The vendor does not recommend or vouch for your firm. A vendor that tells a claimant “this is the best firm for your case” has made a recommendation. A vendor that runs an advertisement offering a consultation, captures the inquiry, and passes it on has sold advertising.
• The vendor exercises no legal judgment. Screening against your stated intake criteria is permissible administrative filtering. Advising a claimant on the merits or value of their claim is not, and edges toward unauthorized practice.
• You retain sole authority over case acceptance. No arrangement should ever oblige your firm to take a file.

One important exception cuts the other way: qualified lawyer referral services, where they are registered and approved by a state bar, may charge fees that would otherwise be impermissible under Rule 7.2(b)(2). That is a distinct arrangement from buying advertising leads — do not assume a vendor qualifies as one because it uses the word “referral” in its marketing.

Rule 7.3 and the solicitation problem

Model Rule 7.3 restricts live person-to-person solicitation of someone known to need legal services. Purchased leads sit outside that prohibition specifically because the prospective client initiated contact by submitting a form asking to speak with an attorney. This is why two things on the delivery side matter ethically, not just commercially:

• The consent record. It is your evidence that the contact was invited. This is the same artifact TCPA compliance turns on — see TCPA compliance for MVA lead buyers.
• Representation status. Contacting a claimant already represented by counsel raises problems under Rule 4.2. Screening for unrepresented status is an ethics control, not merely a quality filter.

You are responsible for the vendor’s advertising

This is the obligation buyers most often miss. Under Rule 5.3 and the advertising rules generally, a lawyer is responsible for the conduct of non-lawyers acting on the firm’s behalf. If a vendor runs ad creative promising outcomes, implying a guarantee, using a testimonial without the required disclaimer, or failing to include a required advertising label, the exposure can land on the firm whose cases it produced.

Practically: ask to see the live creative, ask whether your firm name appears anywhere in it, and if it does, run it past the same review any in-house ad would get.

The five-point pre-purchase checklist

Before buying, confirm five things in writing: the vendor is paid a flat fee per lead and not a share of any recovery; the vendor makes no representation about outcomes to the claimant; ad copy the vendor runs would satisfy your state's attorney-advertising rules; you hold the retained-file decision entirely; and you can audit the ad creative and consent record on request.

State variation to check yourself

Several jurisdictions add requirements beyond the Model Rules — filing or pre-approval of advertisements, mandatory disclaimers, restrictions on testimonials and past-results claims, and specific rules governing for-profit referral or matching services. Florida, New York, Texas, and California each impose obligations that a national vendor’s standard paperwork will not automatically satisfy. If you buy in multiple states, the strictest one sets your operating standard.

Capper, runner, and steerer statutes

Capper, runner, and steerer statutes criminalise paying a third party to solicit or procure clients in person for a lawyer, and exist in most states with the strictest enforcement in California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Louisiana. They target in-person and telephonic solicitation of accident victims — not advertising. A vendor that generates inquiries through disclosed advertising and charges a flat per-lead fee sits outside these statutes; a vendor paying tow operators, chiropractors, or body shops for names does not.

The practical test is how the claimant first came into contact with the vendor. An inquiry that begins with the injured person clicking an ad and submitting a form is advertising, and the flat fee you pay for it is an advertising cost under Model Rule 7.2. An inquiry that begins with someone approaching a crash victim at a tow yard, an emergency room, or a chiropractor’s office is solicitation, and no contract structure makes it safe to buy. Ask every vendor to name the channels its leads originate from and the domains its ads point to. A vendor that will not answer that question in writing is one you cannot clear.

The exposure rises when the vendor has already spoken to the claimant about representation, which is exactly what happens in the signed-retainer model — buying signed cases sits closer to the line than buying leads does, and the fee structure question is set out on pay-per-signed-case.

Model Rule 7.2(b): advertising versus recommendation

ABA Model Rule 7.2(b) permits a lawyer to pay the reasonable cost of advertising, including flat per-lead fees to a lead generator, while prohibiting giving anything of value for a recommendation. The operative distinction is whether the payment buys reach or buys an endorsement, and whether the fee varies with case outcome. A fixed price per lead is advertising; a share of the fee is not, in any U.S. jurisdiction.

The FCC one-to-one consent rule, and what actually changed

The FCC's one-to-one consent rule would have required a consumer to name each seller individually before being contacted, effectively ending broad lead resale. It was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in January 2025 before taking effect, so multi-party consent language remains lawful federally. Prior express written consent under the TCPA, state mini-TCPAs, and per-lead consent artifacts all still apply — the vacatur removed one requirement, not the framework.

Some vendors still cite the rule as a reason their pricing changed, and some buyers still believe multi-party consent language is now unlawful. Neither is right. What survived is the part that matters to you as the calling party: prior express written consent, state mini-TCPA requirements, and your own obligation to hold a defensible artifact for every number your firm dials. See TCPA compliance for MVA lead buyers for the documentation spec.

How we operate

We charge a fixed cost per lead, agreed before delivery and unrelated to case outcome. We make no representation to any claimant about which firm they should hire or what their claim is worth. Screening is administrative filtering against criteria you set. Every lead carries a timestamped consent record, and case acceptance is entirely yours. Our published terms are on buy MVA leads and the vetting script we invite you to run on us is at 12 questions to ask any MVA lead vendor.