I agreed to split a contingent fee 50-50 with the attorney who referred me the case, but he has since been disbarred. Can we still split the fee, and if not, how do I pay him for his work?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represented a client in a contingent-fee matter that another attorney had referred to him after suit was filed. At the time of the referral, criminal charges were pending against the referring attorney. With the client's consent, the two attorneys agreed to split the contingent fee. The referring attorney was later disbarred by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. With the matter nearing conclusion, the inquiring attorney asked whether he and the disbarred attorney could split the contingent fee, and if not, whether the disbarred attorney could otherwise be compensated for his work.

The panel concluded that they could not split the fee under what it presumed was a 50-50 arrangement unless each attorney had provided half the services. Rule 1.5(e) permits dividing a fee either in proportion to the services each lawyer renders, or on another basis by written agreement with the client if each lawyer assumes responsibility for the representation. Having been disbarred, the referring attorney could not assume the continuing responsibility required for a non-proportional split. The panel concluded, however, that the inquiring attorney could pay the disbarred attorney on a quantum meruit basis, the reasonable value of the services the disbarred attorney performed before suspension or disbarment, citing opinions from Maryland and Michigan and its own prior opinions. It added that if the resulting division differed from the original fee agreement between the client and the lawyers, the attorney should so advise the client.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in November 1998, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.5(e) 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. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Can I split a contingent fee 50-50 with the lawyer who referred me the case if he is later disbarred?

A: Not on that basis. The opinion concluded a 50-50 split was not permitted unless each attorney provided half the services, because a disbarred attorney cannot assume the continuing responsibility Rule 1.5(e) requires for a division not based on the proportion of services.

Q: How can the disbarred attorney be paid for the work he did?

A: The opinion concluded he was entitled to quantum meruit, the reasonable value of the services he performed before suspension or disbarment, which the inquiring attorney could pay him.

Q: Do I need to tell the client if the fee division changes?

A: Yes. The opinion advised that if a division made in accordance with the opinion differs from the original fee agreement between the client and the lawyers, the inquiring attorney should so advise the client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) (Model Rule 1.5(e)) as originally adopted. Rule 1.5(e) permits a division of a fee between lawyers not in the same firm either in proportion to the services each renders, or, by written agreement with the client, on another basis if each lawyer assumes responsibility for the representation (Rule 1.5(e)(i)). The panel concluded that a disbarred lawyer cannot assume the continuing responsibility that the non-proportional route requires, leaving only a division based on services actually rendered, or quantum meruit compensation for the disbarred lawyer's prior work.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.5 / RI RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers)

Other opinions cited:

• Maryland State Bar Assn. Op. 96-32 (1996): cited on quantum meruit compensation
• Michigan State Bar Op. RI-270 (1996): cited on the same point
• RI EAP Ops. 92-87 and 92-81: cited on the same point

See also

• RI EAP Op. 99-19: Fee split with a suspended lawyer
• RI EAP Op. 99-08: Dual law and investment-advisory practice

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%2098-14.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Final

                         RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT
                            ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
                          Opinion No. 98-14 Request No. 762
                              Issued November 19, 1998

Facts:

     The inquiring attorney represents a client in a contingent fee matter that was referred to

him/her by another attorney after a lawsuit had been filed. At the time the referral was made,
there were criminal charges pending against the referring attorney. With the consent of the
client, the inquiring attorney and the referring attorney agreed to "split" the contingent fee. The
referring attorney was subsequently disbarred by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The matter is
nearing conclusion and the inquiring attorney seeks the Panel's guidance on the fee arrangement.

Issue Presented:
The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she and the disbarred attorney may "split" the
contingent fee and if not, whether the disbarred attorney may otherwise be compensated for
his/her work on the case.

Opinion:

   The inquiring attorney and the disbarred attorney may not "split" the contingent fee in

what the Panel presumes is 50-50 fee arrangement, unless each attorney provided one-half of the
services on the matter. The disbarred attorney is entitled to be compensated for the reasonable
value of the services he/she provided prior to suspension or disbarment.

Reasoning:

    Rule 1.5(e) permits lawyers to divide a fee either on the basis of the proportion of

services they render, or on some other basis by written agreement between the lawyers and the
client if each lawyer assumes responsibility for the representation. See Rule 1.5(e)(i). Having
been disbarred, the referring attorney cannot assume the continued responsibility required by the
provision of the rule which permits fee-sharing that is not based on the proportion of services
rendered. Accordingly, the inquiring attorney and the disbarred attorney may not "split" the
contingent fee under a 50-50 fee arrangement, unless each attorney provided one-half the
services. However, the inquiring attorney may pay the disbarred attorney according to quantum
meruit, that is, the reasonable value of the services that the disbarred attorney performed prior to
suspension or disbarment. See Maryland State Bar Assoc., Op. 96-32 (1996); Michigan State
Bar, Op. RI-270 (1996); R.I. Sup. Ct. Ethics Advisory Panel Ops. 92-87 and 92-81. If a division
of the fee made in accordance with this opinion differs from the original fee agreement between
the client and the lawyers, the Panel further advises the inquiring attorney to so advise the client.