Alex Attorney is a licensed attorney specializing in real estate law. Due to the housing collapse, much of his practice now consists of representing underwater homeowners with foreclosure litigation and proceedings. To increase his client base, Alex hosts a free clinic in the ballroom of a local hotel every Saturday morning where he provides general information to the attendees regarding their rights and responsibilities in the foreclosure process.

Alex's paralegal also attends, handing out brochures containing information about the foreclosure process, some statistical data about the number of foreclosures nationally and locally, and Alex's photograph and contact information.

As a result of these general information sessions, on average, four or five attendees ask for a more in-depth consultation at Alex's office. Of those, two or three of the five consultations will result in the representation of the clients in the foreclosure proceedings.

1. In holding such information sessions, has Alex violated any ethical rules regarding solicitation and/or advertising? Why, or why not?
2. Does it matter that people who may be facing foreclosure of their homes could be seen as a group particularly "vulnerable" to an attorney's marketing of legal services?
3. If your answer to the question above is yes, does that place a higher ethical burden on Alex as to the marketing of legal services to such a vulnerable group? Why?

Assume that Alex normally bills for services after the services are rendered to clients. However, knowing that these foreclosure clients are in precarious financial straits, Alex asks for, and gets, a $4,000 retainer "upfront."

1. Is this discrimination?
2. If so, is it illegal discrimination that would be actionable by Alex's clients? Why or why not?