O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-19-55 (2019)

Certain solicitation prohibited

✓ O.C.G.A.: 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, or voluntary association to solicit legal employment on behalf of any attorney, firm, corporation, or organization where the attorney, firm, corporation, or organization would not himself or itself be authorized to engage in such solicitation. However, nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit a person, association, or corporation lawfully engaged in the business of conducting a mercantile or collection agency or adjustment bureau from employing an attorney at law to give legal advice concerning, or to prosecute actions in court which relate to, the adjustment or collection of debts and accounts only.

History

(Ga. L. 1931, p. 191, § 1; Code 1933, § 9-405.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Standards for advertising and solicitation activities concerning prepaid legal services plans, § 33-35-12.

Prohibition against giving advice to inmate by employee of penal institution regarding employment of attorney, and prohibition against receipt by such employee of money paid as fees or otherwise to attorney representing inmate in criminal case, § 42-1-1.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Bar association's offer to represent persons involved with usurious moneylender not violative of section. - Local bar association's offer to represent, free of charge, persons caught in the toils of the usurious moneylender in defending against such illegal exactions, and to represent those people in bringing actions to recover amounts illegally paid under loan contracts, was not a violation of this section. Gunnels v. Atlanta Bar Ass'n, 191 Ga. 366, 12 S.E.2d 602 (1940).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Attorneys at Law, §§ 44, 45, 73 et seq.

C.J.S. - 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, §§ 19, 47.

ALR. - Services incident to membership in automobile "association" as practice of law or as ground for discipline of attorney who conducts the "association" or is connected therewith, 106 A.L.R. 548.

What amounts to practice of law, 111 A.L.R. 19; 125 A.L.R. 1173; 151 A.L.R. 781.

Practice of medicine, dentistry, or law through radio broadcasting stations, newspapers, or magazines, 114 A.L.R. 1506.

Right of corporation to perform or to hold itself out as ready to perform functions in the nature of legal services, 157 A.L.R. 282.

Heir-hunting, 171 A.L.R. 351.

Maintenance of lawyer reference system by organization having no legal interest in proceedings, 11 A.L.R.3d 1206.

Operations of collection agency as unauthorized practice of law, 27 A.L.R.3d 1152.

Lawyer publicity as breach of legal ethics, 4 A.L.R.4th 306.

Modern status of law regarding solicitation of business by or for attorney, 5 A.L.R.4th 866.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Falanga v. State Bar of Georgia, 150 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Falanga v. State Bar of Georgia, 150 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 1998). “Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-1, we affirm but do not discuss three other issues that Falanga and Chalker present in their cross-appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in dismissing their claim that despite the State Bar’s concession that it has not, does not and…”
Cambre & Assocs., LLC v. R. Shane Lazenby (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “live telephone contact” with potential clients; (2) OCGA § 33-24-53, which criminalizes the solicitation of information related to motor vehicle collisions for personal financial gain; and (3) OCGA § 15-19-55, which bars non-lawyers from engaging in direct solicitation of legal…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.