Can a practicing lawyer also serve as executive director of a private association that has its own separate counsel?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who practiced law was also employed in an administrative capacity as executive director of a private association. The association had separately retained another lawyer to handle its legal affairs. He asked whether the dual role violated the Code.

The committee found no ethical objection, on stated assumptions: that the association's retained legal counsel was not associated with the inquirer in the practice of law, and that the association position was kept completely separate from the inquirer's law practice and was not used as a feeder. It added that it could not give a more definitive opinion because it lacked facts to judge whether a feeder problem existed, and directed the inquirer to diligently avoid the evils implicit in DR 2-103 and 2-104.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility (DR 2-102, 2-103, 2-104), the solicitation-related subject matter of which is now addressed by Rule 4-7.18 and the related advertising and solicitation rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer hold a non-legal executive job with a private association?

A: Under this opinion, yes, where the association has its own separate counsel, the roles are kept separate, and the position is not used as a feeder of legal business.

Q: What is the "feeder" concern the committee raised?

A: The opinion directs the lawyer to avoid using the association position to channel legal business to himself, citing the anti-solicitation provisions of DR 2-103 and 2-104.

Q: Did the committee give a definitive answer?

A: It found no objection on the stated assumptions but said it could not give a more definitive opinion without facts showing whether a feeder problem existed.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-102, 2-103, and 2-104 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which addressed professional notices and the solicitation of legal business. That subject matter is now addressed by Florida's solicitation rule, Rule 4-7.18, and the related advertising rules. The Model Rule analogue is Rule 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102, DR 2-103, DR 2-104 [Code of Professional Responsibility; solicitation subject matter now in Rule 4-7.18]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 71-31: Legal Aid Society Newspaper Column
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 71-39: Firm Investigator's Business Card

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-71-4/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-71-4-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 71-4
April 9, 1971
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
There is nothing unethical about a practicing attorney also being employed as executive director of a private association that is represented by other counsel.
CPR: DR 2-102, 2-104
Chairman Massey stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar practices law but also is employed in an administrative capacity with a private association as executive director. The association has another attorney retained to handle its legal affairs. He inquires whether he is violative of the CPR.
Assuming the legal affairs attorney for the association (unnamed) is not associated with the inquirer in the practice of law and further assuming the position with the association is kept completely separate and apart from the inquirer's law practice and is not used as a feeder, there is no ethical objection. A more definitive opinion cannot be given as sufficient facts are not at hand to make an ethical judgment as to whether a "feeder" problem exists. The inquirer should diligently avoid any of the evils implicit in DR 2-103 and 2-104.