May a Florida lawyer divide fees with an inactive New York lawyer living in Florida who refers Florida clients to him?

Plain-English summary

A member asked whether, as a Florida lawyer, he could accept referrals on a fee-division basis from a New York lawyer who maintained a New York office but was not actually practicing there and resided in Florida, where he was not admitted and did not practice.

The committee found the question posed several problems. First, whether the New York lawyer would be practicing law in Florida by referring Florida clients, and whether he would render any services other than referral. The committee felt that for the New York lawyer to refer Florida residents to the inquirer might constitute the unauthorized practice of law, and that it would be definitely improper and unethical if he rendered no services and received a division of the fees. The committee added that in an isolated instance, if an inactive New York Bar member residing in Florida referred a case to a Florida lawyer as a courtesy, without asking or expecting any part of the fee and merely as an accommodation to the client, it would be proper for the Florida lawyer to handle the case. It noted that Canon 34 specifically condemns the division of fees for legal services except with another lawyer, and that an inactive New York lawyer residing in Florida could not qualify as a lawyer under that restriction.

Currency note

This opinion carries a 1967 issuance date, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied former Canons 34 and 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the division of fees with a nonlawyer and assisting the unauthorized practice of law are now addressed by Rules 4-5.4 and 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 5.4 and 5.5), and fee division among lawyers by Rule 4-1.5. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the Florida lawyer split fees with the inactive New York lawyer for the referrals?

A: No, on these facts. The committee found that dividing fees with an inactive New York lawyer residing in Florida who rendered no services would be improper and might aid the unauthorized practice of law.

Q: Was any referral from the New York lawyer permissible?

A: Yes, an isolated one. If he referred a case as a courtesy, without asking or expecting any part of the fee and merely to accommodate the client, the committee said it would be proper for the Florida lawyer to handle the case.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 34 and 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Dividing fees with a nonlawyer and assisting the unauthorized practice of law are now addressed by Rules 4-5.4 and 4-5.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 5.4 and 5.5), with fee division among lawyers governed by Rule 4-1.5. The committee's analysis turned on whether the referring person could qualify as a lawyer for fee-division purposes and whether his referrals amounted to unauthorized practice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 34 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-5.4, 4-1.5]
• Canon 47 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-5.5]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 62-3: Fee Division With a Non-Practicing Lawyer
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 61-14: An Out-of-State Lawyer on the Firm Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-60-18/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-60-18-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 60-18
December 13, 1967
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It may constitute aiding the unauthorized practice of law for a Florida Bar member to accept cases referred to him by a New York bar member residing in Florida and to divide the fee with the New York lawyer.
Canons: 34, 47
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar wishes to know whether it would be proper and ethical for him as a Florida lawyer to accept referrals from a New York lawyer maintaining an office in New York but actually not practicing there and residing in Florida, where he is not admitted and does not practice, on the basis of a division of fees.
The question poses several problems. First, would the New York lawyer be practicing law in Florida by referring Florida clients, and would he render any services other than referral? The Committee feels that for the New York lawyer to refer Florida residents to the inquirer might constitute the unauthorized practice of law, and that it would be definitely improper and unethical if he rendered no services and received a division of the fees.
In an isolated instance, if a member of the New York Bar, presently inactive and residing in Florida, as a courtesy referred a case to a Florida lawyer without asking or expecting any part of the fee and merely as an accommodation to the client, it would be proper for the Florida lawyer to handle the case.
Canon 34 specifically condemns the division of fees for legal services except with another lawyer, and we do not feel that an inactive New York lawyer residing in Florida can qualify as a lawyer under this restriction.