Can a lawyer-legislator's firm share an office suite with a firm whose member lobbies the legislature?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who was also a member of the Florida legislature planned to leave his old firm and start a new practice with a family member. He learned that part of a suite occupied by another law firm was available, and one member of that firm performed lobbying services for a client before the legislature. Mindful of the problems discussed in Florida Opinion 67-5 (since withdrawn), he asked whether his new firm could occupy space in that shared suite.

The inquirer described the safeguards: each firm kept complete and separate operations (its own books, bookkeeper, supplies, bank and trust accounts), the two shared a common reception room and receptionist whose salary they split, the firms split the telephone bill while separate numbers were being installed, the switchboard answered "law offices" and referred callers, and each firm paid half the rent. Treating the arrangement as a temporary accommodation, and pointing to the measures establishing a physical and functional division of the separate practices, the committee cited Florida Opinion 70-14 and found no impropriety in the conduct as described.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canons of Professional Ethics and Code of Professional Responsibility, which have since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer-legislator's firm share the suite even though another occupant lobbied the legislature?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee found no impropriety in the space-sharing arrangement as described, treating it as a temporary accommodation and resting on the physical and functional separation of the two practices.

Q: What features made the arrangement acceptable to the committee?

A: The opinion pointed to separate books, bookkeepers, supplies, bank and trust accounts, the move toward separate telephone numbers, a switchboard that answered generically and referred callers, and each firm paying its own share of rent and expenses, citing Florida Opinion 70-14 on the division of separate practices.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canons of Professional Ethics and cited no specific disciplinary rule, resolving the question by reference to its earlier opinions on office-sharing (67-5, since withdrawn, and 70-14). In current Florida practice, the concerns raised by sharing space, principally protecting client confidences and maintaining the lawyer's professional independence, are addressed by Rule 4-1.6 and Rule 4-5.4, which correspond to Model Rules 1.6 and 5.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Canons of Professional Ethics generally; no specific disciplinary rule cited

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 67-5 (since withdrawn)
• Florida Opinion 70-14, on physical and functional division of separate practices

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 71-66: A Lay Company's Name on the Window
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-4: Marriage Counselor in a Law Office
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-18: Partner on Leave and the Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-71-59/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-71-59-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 71-59
January 25, 1972
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is permissible for a lawyer-legislator's firm to share a suite of offices with another law firm, one member of which performs lobbying services, provided there is a physical and functional division of the separate law practices.
Opinions: 67-5, 70-14
Chairman Clarkson stated the opinion of the committee:
A lawyer-legislator submits the following question for our consideration:
Until recently he had been a member of a firm in a metropolitan area. Intending to establish a new practice in partnership with a lawyer member of his family, he sought new office space. Coincidentally, he learned of the availability of part of a suite of offices occupied by a law firm, one member of which performs lobbying services for a client before the Florida legislature. Being mindful of problems discussed in Florida Opinion 67-5 [since withdrawn], the legislator asks whether we find any impropriety in his new firm's occupancy of space within a suite shared by the lawyer-lobbyist under the circumstances detailed hereafter. He advises of the following arrangements:

1. Each firm maintains complete and separate operations from the other--each having their own books and bookkeeper; each buying its own supplies, books, postage and all other office expense items; each maintaining its own bank accounts (trust and operating) and in every respect being completely separate.
2. We have a common reception room and receptionist or telephone operator in that space. We each pay one-half of the receptionist's salary.
3. A & B had four telephone lines coming into the office--all of which operated in sequence off of (telephone number). Temporarily C & D are listed under the same number and we pay for two of these lines--or one-half of the telephone bill for the equipment and basic service. Naturally, each one maintains its own record of toll charges and pays them accordingly. We have ordered separate phone numbers for C & D which will be installed soon. The switchboard operator answers the phone "law offices" and then refers the caller appropriately.
4. Each of the two law firms pays one-half of the total rent for the space occupied.
   Assuming the space-sharing arrangement to be a temporary accommodation, and in view of the measures taken to establish a physical and functional division of the separate practices, see Florida Opinion 70-14, the Committee finds no impropriety in the conduct as described.