JustAnswer pay-per-question. The per-question fee structure governs the compliance posture; cross-jurisdictional answers govern the Rule 5.5 exposure.
JustAnswer is a paid Q&A marketplace where users submit questions on legal, medical, tax, and other topics and pay a platform fee for an expert response. Legal questions route to participating attorneys in the relevant practice area and jurisdiction. The per-question fee structure differs from a referral-service model; the compliance analysis still runs through Rule 5.5 unauthorized-practice, Rule 5.4(a) fee-splitting, Rule 7.2(b) advertising-costs, and Rule 1.6 confidentiality on a platform-mediated communication.
How the platform actually works
JustAnswer collects a payment from the user upfront. The user submits a question covering the legal topic, jurisdiction, and matter facts. The platform routes the submission to attorneys in the relevant practice area and jurisdiction. A participating attorney drafts a response. The platform pays the attorney a portion of the user's fee. The compensation structure varies by question type and by attorney participation tier. The platform sits between the user and the attorney for the duration of the question, structurally similar to a lead-routing surface but with a different compensation model from per-lead aggregators like Avvo Pro or Nolo Network.
Rule 5.5 unauthorized-practice exposure
Rule 5.5 prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. Answering a specific legal question from a user in a state where the attorney is not licensed routes into Rule 5.5 territory. The exposure depends on whether the answer constitutes legal advice (which requires licensure in the user's jurisdiction) or general legal information (which is broadly permissible). JustAnswer's per-question structure makes jurisdictional verification of the asking user operationally challenging. Participating attorneys have to limit responses to general information that does not constitute legal advice in the user's jurisdiction, or restrict participation to questions from users in states where the attorney holds bar admission.
Rule 5.4(a) versus Rule 7.2(b) on the fee structure
Rule 7.2(b) permits paying the reasonable costs of advertisements and communications. Rule 5.4(a) prohibits fee-splitting with non-lawyers. Per-question compensation that flows from user to platform to attorney sits structurally close to fee division by matter. The specific analysis depends on the structure: a flat per-question payout decoupled from question complexity sits closer to Rule 7.2(b); a payout that scales with question type, question complexity, or downstream attorney-client conversion sits closer to Rule 5.4(a). California's Certified Referral Service framework treats active routing as a referral structure regardless of compensation form. Other states have not issued binding guidance on the platform specifically. Compare to the deeper fee sharing with nonlawyers hub for the substantive rule, or the sibling LegalMatch fee-splitting review for the directly-routed analog.
Confidentiality on platform-mediated communications
Rule 1.18 governs duties to prospective clients. Rule 1.6 governs client confidentiality. User-submitted facts on JustAnswer pass through the platform's infrastructure before reaching any specific attorney. The platform sits in the communication path, complicating the confidentiality structure that lets attorney-client privilege attach. Rule 1.18 prospective-client duties may apply once a specific attorney reviews the submission, but full privilege under Rule 1.6 is structurally weakened by the third-party platform's involvement. The user-facing platform terms govern privilege treatment for the platform-mediated exchange.
For attorneys evaluating JustAnswer participation against an owned-domain alternative, the law firm SEO retainer covers the owned-domain practice-area surface where the firm captures prospects directly without the per-question intermediary. The owned-asset path sits cleanly inside Rule 7.2(b) advertising-costs framework; no Rule 5.4(a) or Rule 5.5 cross-jurisdictional analysis applies.
For the broader framework, see the fee sharing with nonlawyers hub. The bar-compliant lead generation service covers the owned-asset alternative to platform-mediated intake.
Questions on the per-question platform before the participation audit.
-
What is the ISLN and what does it identify?
The International Standard Lawyer Number is Martindale-Hubbell's proprietary persistent identifier, assigned to attorneys in its database. It functions as a stable identifier across name changes, firm changes, and jurisdictional changes. ISLN consistency lets entity-resolution systems (Google's Knowledge Graph, third-party data providers, the Internet Brands syndicate itself) disambiguate attorneys with similar names and chain identity across surfaces.
-
How does ISLN consistency propagate across the Internet Brands syndicate?
Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw share data infrastructure under MH Sub I. ISLN populated on the Martindale-Hubbell profile flows to the other syndicate nodes. A NAP correction on one node propagates ISLN-anchored to the others. The compliant directory citation program treats ISLN plus state bar number plus NAP as the anchor triple and maintains all three as one citation profile across the syndicate.
-
How does Google read ISLN as an entity signal?
Google's Knowledge Graph reads identifier consistency as an entity-confidence signal. ISLN appearing consistently across Martindale-Hubbell, Avvo, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw alongside the state bar number produces multiple cross-referenceable identifiers anchored to the attorney entity. The redundant identifier structure raises the confidence Google attaches to the attorney as a single entity rather than separate matching records.
-
Does an attorney have an ISLN without a claimed Martindale-Hubbell profile?
Yes. Martindale-Hubbell assigns ISLNs to attorneys in its database from public bar data, independent of profile-claim status. The identifier exists for the unclaimed profile too. Claiming the profile lets the attorney verify and maintain ISLN-anchored citation data across the syndicate. The identifier is durable; the claimed-profile status is what activates citation management.
The per-question fee structure governs compliance. The cross-jurisdictional answer surface governs Rule 5.5 exposure. The owned asset sits outside both. Book a diagnostic.
We read your current JustAnswer or sibling-platform participation against Rule 5.5 cross-jurisdictional exposure, Rule 5.4(a) per-question fee analysis, Rule 7.2(b) flat-fee fit, and Rule 1.18 prospective-client duties on platform-mediated communications. The diagnostic comes back with the per-question retention scope and the owned-asset build plan.