Why a Danish Lawyer Can't Pay an Influencer a Referral Commission — and What They Can Do Instead

Short answer: no — and there's only one narrow alternative left

No. A Danish lawyer may neither pay nor receive a fee, commission or any other consideration for referring or recommending a client, and may not share their fee with anyone who isn't a lawyer either. That closes off the standard influencer affiliate model — payment per referred or signed-up client — entirely for law firms, no matter how common commission-based pay is elsewhere in influencer marketing.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Use this article to understand where the line sits — get a concrete assessment from a lawyer, or from Advokatsamfundet (the Danish Bar Association) itself, if you're unsure about a specific arrangement.

The rules: Articles 65 and 66 of the Danish lawyers' ethics code

The Danish Bar Association's own binding ethics rules for lawyers — De Advokatetiske Regler, in effect from 1 September 2022 and still applied by Advokatrådet (most recently expanded, but unchanged on this point, with effect from 1 July 2025) — contain two separate prohibitions that together close off almost any commission- or referral-fee model for a law firm:

• Article 66 (referral fees): "A lawyer may not demand or receive a fee, commission or other consideration for referring or recommending a client. Likewise, a lawyer may not pay a fee, commission or other consideration for the referral of a client." (translated from the Danish original)
• Article 65 (fee sharing): "A lawyer may not enter into an agreement to share their fee with anyone who is not a lawyer." The only exception written into the provision itself is payment to the transferor of a law firm — a classic succession scenario, not a marketing arrangement.

These rules carry legal force because they implement § 126(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven), which requires a lawyer to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with good legal practice ("god advokatskik") — the general provision that Advokatnævnet (the Disciplinary Board for lawyers) and the courts use to establish the content of good legal practice in concrete cases, including cases concerning the individual provisions of the ethics code.

	Allowed	Prohibited
Payment for marketing	A flat fee for content or exposure, regardless of whether anyone becomes a client	A fee, commission or other consideration conditioned on someone becoming or being referred as a client (Article 66)
Payment model	Fixed price, invoiced as an ordinary marketing service	A share or percentage of the lawyer's fee in the specific case (Article 65)
Exception	No general exception for marketing — the line runs on payment structure, not channel	Only payment to the transferor of a law firm is expressly excepted from Article 65

Why this is an absolute rule — not a gray area like other industries

Most of the Academy's regulated-industry articles — insurance distribution and real estate mediation are both examples — turn on when an influencer's activity in practice becomes the regulated activity itself (insurance distribution, real estate mediation) and therefore requires a license. That's a gray area precisely because the law doesn't itself define the line precisely.

The lawyer rules are stricter in a different way: Articles 65 and 66 don't prohibit the marketing activity itself — they prohibit the payment structure. An influencer who talks about a law firm isn't, by that alone, practicing law and doesn't need a law license. But the moment payment is tied to whether someone becomes a client — as a per-referral commission or a share of the fee — the prohibition applies, regardless of how small or large the exposure otherwise was. There's no equivalent "accessory" or lighter-touch category to fall back on, unlike the one that exists for insurance distribution.

What exactly the standard affiliate or commission model runs into

The default model in influencer marketing is commission per sale — and for most industries that's both legal and common, the same way an ordinary referral or loyalty program usually is, as long as it doesn't slide into an illegal pyramid scheme. For a law firm, the picture is entirely different:

• Payment per referred or signed-up client — the most common affiliate mechanic — hits Article 66 directly, regardless of whether the amount is fixed or variable.
• A percentage of the lawyer's fee in the specific case — a "no cure no pay"-style model aimed at the marketer rather than the client — simultaneously hits Article 65, because it's effectively fee-sharing with a non-lawyer.
• A flat fee for "generating leads" that's actually settled based on the number of converted cases — even if the contract calls it a "marketing service" — still hits Article 66 under the provisions' own activity-based logic, because it's payment for the referral in substance, just under a different name.

What's left? Decision framework

IF the law firm pays a flat fee for content or exposure that is not conditioned on whether anyone becomes a client → this resembles ordinary marketing and, per the provisions' own wording, likely doesn't trigger Article 65 or 66, because the payment isn't "for referring or recommending a client."

IF payment — wholly or partly — depends on whether someone becomes a client, whether it's called a commission, a bonus or a success fee → this hits Article 66, regardless of the amount or how formalized the arrangement is.

IF payment is a share or percentage of the fee the law firm receives in the specific case → this simultaneously hits Article 65, regardless of whether the recipient is called an influencer, a marketing partner, or anything else.

IF you're unsure whether a specific contract structure edges toward the line → ask Advokatsamfundet or a lawyer specializing in legal ethics before signing. This research found no published case that has specifically tested the prohibition against an influencer or content-creator arrangement, which makes getting it confirmed upfront especially valuable rather than relying on an assumption.

Regardless of payment model, the ordinary ad-disclosure rules still apply to any paid collaboration — the two rule sets apply on top of each other, not instead of each other.

Sanctions if the rules are breached

A breach of the ethics code is handled as a conduct complaint (disciplinary case) before Advokatnævnet, which per its own practice can respond with a reprimand or a fine — typically DKK 10,000 for a first-time breach with no aggravating circumstances and around DKK 20,000 for a serious breach, with the possibility of a substantially higher fine (up to DKK 300,000, and up to DKK 600,000 for a particularly serious breach) in more severe cases. For gross or repeated breaches, where the lawyer's conduct shows they can no longer be trusted to practice law responsibly, Advokatnævnet can revoke the lawyer's license to practice (advokatbestalling) for a period of 6 months to 5 years, or indefinitely. Decisions with a fine of DKK 20,000 or more are, as a rule, published with the lawyer's name.

This research found no published Advokatnævnet decision that has specifically dealt with a referral or commission arrangement between a law firm and an influencer or a marketing agency. That's an honest limitation of this article — the wording of the prohibition is unambiguous, but no concrete example was found of how Advokatnævnet weighs the circumstances specifically in an influencer context.

Worked example: why the amount is irrelevant (hypothetical, not a real case)

The figures below are invented and for illustration only — not a Make Influence customer or a real case.

A law firm is considering two different arrangements with an influencer in the personal-injury space:

Arrangement A (marketing): The firm pays the influencer DKK 20,000 for a video series explaining how a compensation case typically unfolds. The amount is the same regardless of whether any follower later contacts the firm or becomes a client. This payment isn't conditioned on a referral and, per the provisions' own wording, doesn't hit Article 66.

Arrangement B (referral fee): The firm instead pays the influencer DKK 2,000 for every follower who becomes a client via a personal link — even if, in a given year, that only produces two referrals and a total of DKK 4,000, far below Arrangement A's DKK 20,000. This arrangement hits Article 66 despite the lower total amount — because the prohibition is tied to the payment structure, not the size of the amount.

The example shows that a smaller fee doesn't make a referral payment lawful — it's the link between payment and referral that's prohibited, regardless of amount.

Make Influence's operational perspective

In our experience, the legal profession is the cleanest of the regulated industries we've covered in the Academy — there's no gray area to navigate, only a question of structuring the payment correctly from the outset. Our clear recommendation for a law firm considering influencer marketing is to stick to a flat fee for content or exposure and never let payment — wholly or partly — depend on whether someone becomes a client, no matter how tempting a performance-based model looks elsewhere in the industry. Get the specific contract structure confirmed in writing with the firm's own compliance function or with Advokatsamfundet before the contract is signed, and remember that the collaboration must still be clearly disclosed as an ad regardless.

FAQ

Can a law firm pay an influencer absolutely nothing?

No, they can pay a flat fee for content, exposure or a general mention — what's prohibited is tying the payment to whether someone becomes a client, or sharing a share of the fee with a non-lawyer.

What if the influencer just links to the firm's website with no commission attached?

A plain traffic or exposure link with no payment tied to whether anyone becomes a client doesn't, per the provisions' own wording, hit Article 66 — it's the condition of payment for the referral that triggers the prohibition, not the link itself.

Does the prohibition apply only to individuals, or also to marketing agencies and platforms?

The provisions' wording refers to "colleagues or others" and "anyone who is not a lawyer" — wording that, on its own terms, isn't limited to individuals. This research found no specific ruling involving an agency or platform, but the broad wording suggests the prohibition applies regardless of the recipient's organizational form.

Are "no cure no pay" arrangements between a lawyer and the client themselves covered by the same prohibition?

No, that's a different question. Articles 65 and 66 concern payment to a third party for referring or recommending a client, or sharing the fee with a non-lawyer — not how the lawyer agrees their own fee directly with the client. This research found that the previously absolute ban on contingency fees ("pactum de quota litis") toward the client themselves has been replaced with more general requirements that fee-setting must not compromise the lawyer's independence — but that's a separate rule set from the referral- and fee-sharing prohibition this article covers.

Do the same rules apply to other regulated professions, like accountants or real estate agents?

Not necessarily in the same absolute way. Denmark's real estate brokerage act and the insurance distribution rules instead regulate when the activity itself requires a license — not a blanket ban on any commission payment to a marketing partner. Each regulated profession has its own rule set, and they shouldn't be assumed to be identical.

Can a law firm sponsor a podcast or newsletter without issue?

Likely yes, if the sponsorship is a flat fee for exposure and isn't conditioned on whether any listener or reader becomes a client. That's the same line as with an influencer arrangement — the payment structure decides, not the channel.