Secondly, even if enhanced cooperation was permissible, it argued that the
authorizing decision violated the treaty requirements for its use viz: the authorization was not a «last resort» and was in an
area of exclusive EU competence (Article 20 TEU); the authorization violated the principle
of non-discrimination and undermined the single
market by creating discrimination in trade and distortions to competition within the single
market (Article 326 TFEU); and, did not respect the rights
of the non-participating states (Article 327 TFEU).
Prof. Conduct 123 (2001)(subject to the operational structure and content described in the opinion, a lawyer may affiliate with an online legal services website); Nebraska Op. 07 - 05 (lawyer may participate in internet lawyer directory which identifies itself as a directory, disclaims being a referral service and only lists basic information about lawyers without recommending specific lawyers and charges a reasonable, flat annual advertising fee); New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising Op. 36 (2006)(lawyer may pay flat fee to internet
marketing company for exclusive website listing for particular county in specific practice
area if listing includes prominent, unmistakable disclaimer stating the listings are paid advertisements and not endorsements or
authorized referrals); North Carolina Op. 2004 - 1 (lawyer may participate in for - profit online service that is a hybrid referral service - legal directory, provided there is no fee - sharing with the service and communications are truthful); Oregon Op. 2007 - 180 (2007)(lawyer may pay nationwide internet referral service for listing if listing is not false or misleading and does not imply that the lawyer can represent clients outside jurisdictions
of the lawyer's license, fee is not based on number
of referrals, retained clients or revenue generated by listing and the service does not exercise discretion in matching clients with lawyers); Rhode Island 2005 - 01 (permitting website that enables lawyers to post information about their services and respond to anonymous requests for legal services in exchange for flat annual membership fee if website exercises no discretion over which requests lawyers may access); South Carolina 01 - 03 (lawyer may pay internet advertising service fee determined by the number
of «hits» that the service produces for the lawyer provided that the service does not steer business to any particular lawyer and the payments are not based on whether user ultimately becomes a client); Texas Op. 573 (2006)(lawyer may participate in for - profit internet service that matches potential clients and lawyers if selection process is fully automated and performed by computers without the exercise
of human discretion); Virginia Advertising Op.