Can a lawyer share office space with a non-lawyer business, like a mortgage company or an insurance underwriter?

Plain-English summary

Two attorneys posed essentially the same question on different facts. In the first, a two-lawyer partnership shared office space with an unaffiliated lawyer; the offices exited into a common secretarial area with a common entrance and waiting room. The space-sharing lawyer's son wanted to rent a vacant room in the partnership's office to run a mortgage business, with his own secretary in the common area, his own phone number, the shared common entrance and waiting room, and his own sign outside. The partnership might do some legal work for the mortgage company but had no interest in it. In the second, a sole practitioner shared a building he co-owned with a Certified Life Underwriter; each had his own office, telephone, clients, and secretary, sharing only a common waiting room, with the entrance door identifying one as an attorney and the other as a CLU.

The Committee concluded both arrangements were proper, so long as care is taken to maintain the separate practices and identities of the businesses and professions involved, and in particular to preserve the confidences of the attorneys' clients. To the extent its former opinions on the subject, Opinion 129 and Opinion 433, were inconsistent with this opinion, the Committee overruled them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer share office space with a non-lawyer business?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded both arrangements (sharing with a mortgage business and with a Certified Life Underwriter) were proper.

Q: What conditions did the opinion attach?

A: The separate practices and identities of the businesses and professions had to be maintained, and the confidences of the attorneys' clients had to be preserved.

Q: Did this opinion change earlier guidance?

A: Yes. The opinion overruled Opinions 129 and 433 to the extent they were inconsistent with its conclusion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion was decided under the principles then governing New Jersey lawyers, before the 1984 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct, focusing on the preservation of client confidences within a shared-office setting. In current terms the analysis maps onto RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information) and RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants and others whose services the lawyer uses).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.6 / NJ RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• MR 5.3 / NJ RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding non-lawyers)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 129, 91 N.J.L.J. 365 (1968) (overruled to the extent inconsistent)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 433, 104 N.J.L.J. 204 (1979) (overruled to the extent inconsistent)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 515: Lawyers Sharing Word-Processing and Computer Facilities
• NJ ACPE Op. 511: Partnership With a Lawyer Who Sues a Partner's Employer

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp498-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

109 N.J.L.J. 425, May 20, 1982

OPINION 498

Office Space Shared with Others (Prior Opinions Overruled)

We have been asked for opinions by two different attorneys posing essentially the same questions with somewhat different facts. In the first situation the inquirer is a partner in a two-lawyer office with two full-time secretaries. An additional lawyer, not associated with the firm, shares office space. The individual offices of the lawyers are situated so that they all exit into a common secretarial area. There is a common entrance and waiting room. The building in which the partnership practices has other offices and stores. The son of the lawyer who shares space with the partnership desires to rent a vacant room in the partnership office to conduct a mortgage business. He will have his own secretary who will share space with the lawyers' secretaries in the common area and will have his own phone number. He will also share the common entrance and waiting room and have a sign on the outside of the building. The partnership may do some legal work for the mortgage company but it has no interest in the mortgage company.

In the other situation, a single practitioner shares office space with a Certified Life Underwriter in a building they own. Each of them has his own office, separate telephone, separate clients and separate secretaries who share a common waiting room. Occasionally one secretary answers the telephone for the other. The common entrance door has signs identifying one as an attorney and the other as a CLU.

We believe both of these arrangements are proper, so long as care is taken to maintain the separate practices and identities of the businesses and professions involved and in particular that the confidences of the clients of the attorneys are preserved. To the extent that our former opinions on this subject, Opinion 129, 91 N.J.L.J. 365 (1968), and Opinion 433, 104 N.J.L.J. 204 (1979), are inconsistent with this opinion, they are overruled.