My client's first lawyer was suspended, and his former partner now claims a lien for that work. The client tells me not to pay either of them. Do I honor that?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represents a client whose first attorney was suspended from the practice of law. A third attorney, who was the partner of the first attorney, asserted an attorney's lien against the client's settlement for the services rendered by the first attorney. The client instructed the inquiring attorney not to pay any fee to the first attorney or the successor attorney, and the inquiring attorney asked whether the client's request should be honored.

The panel said Rule 1.5(e) addresses the issue specifically, and quoted it: a division of a fee between lawyers not in the same firm may be made only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility; the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers; and the total fee is reasonable.

The panel advised that the fees should be divided with the suspended attorney based on quantum meruit, the fair value of services rendered before the former attorney's suspension, citing Opinion 91-71. It said the inquiring attorney should keep the fee amount in an escrow account until the dispute is resolved; both attorneys should try to reach agreement on the reasonable value of the services rendered before the suspension, and if that fails a tribunal may have to make the determination. The panel did not comment on the suspended attorney's right to assert an attorney's lien for a fee.

In practice

Under this opinion, a client's instruction not to pay a suspended prior lawyer (or a successor asserting that lawyer's lien) does not let the inquiring attorney simply withhold the fee; the disputed amount should be held in escrow and, under Rule 1.5(e), the suspended attorney is entitled to a quantum meruit share for pre-suspension work. The opinion directs the lawyers to try to agree on the reasonable value and leaves the determination to a tribunal if they cannot, expressly declining to address the suspended attorney's lien rights.

Common questions

Q: Should I follow my client's instruction not to pay the suspended lawyer at all?

A: Per the opinion, the disputed fee should be held in escrow until resolved rather than simply withheld, because the suspended attorney is entitled to a quantum meruit share for pre-suspension services under Rule 1.5(e).

Q: How is the suspended lawyer's share measured?

A: Per the opinion, by quantum meruit, the fair value of the services rendered before the former attorney's suspension.

Q: What if the lawyers can't agree on the amount?

A: Per the opinion, both should try to agree on the reasonable value of the pre-suspension services, and if that fails a tribunal may have to make the determination.

Q: Did the panel decide whether the lien is valid?

A: Per the opinion, no; the panel did not comment on the suspended attorney's right to assert an attorney's lien for a fee.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(e), and quotes its three conditions. The panel resolved the suspended attorney's entitlement on a quantum meruit basis (citing Opinion 91-71), directed escrow of the disputed amount, and left valuation to agreement or a tribunal, without opining on the lien.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm)
• RI RPC 1.5(e)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• R.I. Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-71: fee division with a lawyer suspended after the fee agreement.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-81: Compensating a Suspended Predecessor's Office
• RI EAP Op. 92-58: Paying a Suspended Attorney by Quantum Meruit Under 1.5(e)
• RI EAP Op. 92-82: Holding Settlement Funds Subject to a Prior Attorney's Lien

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992 (Opinion 92-87, issued November 18, 1992), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.5 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which amended Rule 1.5 (fees), including fee division. 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 mentioned here.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2092-87.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion 92-87, Request #315
Issued November 18, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice with regard to the following facts. The inquiring attorney represents a client in a legal matter whose first attorney was suspended from the practice of law. A third attorney, who was the partner of the first attorney, asserted an attorney's lien against the client's settlement for the services rendered by the first attorney. The inquiring attorney informs the Panel that the client instructed the inquiring attorney not to pay any fee to the first attorney or the successor attorney. The inquiring attorney asks whether the client's request should be honored.

The Panel advises that Rule 1.5(e) addresses this issue specifically. The Rule states that:

A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:

(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;

(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and

(3) the total fee is reasonable.

The fees should be divided with the suspended attorney based on quantum meruit; the fair value of services rendered before the former attorney's suspension. See Opinion #91-71. The Panel believes that the inquiring attorney should keep the fee amount in an escrow account until the dispute is resolved. Both attorneys should try to reach an agreement on the reasonable value of services prior to the suspension and if that fails, then a tribunal may have to make the determination. The Panel does not comment on the suspended attorney's right to assert an attorney's lien for a fee.