Can a lawyer share offices with a living-trust marketer who steers buyers to the lawyer and is paid weekly based on how many trusts the lawyer reviews?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about a potential relationship with a marketer of living trusts. As the committee understood the facts, the lawyer and the marketer would share separate but adjoining offices. The marketer would give purchasers a short list of attorneys, including the lawyer, and would encourage them to use the lawyer's services. The purchaser would mail an engagement letter to the lawyer with a check for a flat fee to review the trust documents. Each week the lawyer would pay the marketer an amount to cover rent, varying according to how many trusts the lawyer reviewed.

The committee was of the opinion that the proposed arrangement would violate RPC 5.4(a) (sharing fees with nonlawyers) and RPC 5.4(b) (forming a partnership with a nonlawyer for the purpose of practicing law). It also concluded the relationship would violate RPC 7.2(c) because it would pay someone for the recommendation of the lawyer's legal services.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer pay a living-trust marketer rent that varies by how many trusts the lawyer reviews?

A: The committee was of the opinion that this arrangement would violate RPC 5.4(a) (fee sharing with a nonlawyer) and RPC 7.2(c) (paying for recommendation of the lawyer's services).

Q: Why did the committee treat the rent as fee sharing rather than ordinary rent?

A: Because the weekly payment varied according to how many trusts the lawyer reviewed, the committee treated it as sharing fees with the nonlawyer marketer and as payment for recommending the lawyer's services.

Q: Does the arrangement raise a partnership concern?

A: Yes. The committee was of the opinion that it would also violate RPC 5.4(b), which bars forming a partnership with a nonlawyer for the purpose of practicing law.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 5.4 (professional independence; fee sharing and partnership with nonlawyers) and RPC 7.2(c) (paying for recommendation of a lawyer's services), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 5.4 and 7.2. The committee focused on the structure of the payment: a rent that fluctuated with the number of trusts reviewed functioned as a share of legal fees and as compensation to the marketer for steering clients to the lawyer.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence; fee sharing and partnership with nonlawyers); Washington RPC 5.4(a), (b)
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising; payment for recommendations); Washington RPC 7.2(c)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1471: Lawyer Tied to a Living-Trust Company
• ABA Formal Op. 464: Fee Division Across Jurisdictions

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=563

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1483
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 5.4; 5.5; 7.2
Subject: Association with nonlawyer; division of fee with nonlawyer; referral from nonlawyer compensated by lawyer

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a potential relationship with a marketer of living trusts. The Committee understood the facts of your inquiry to be that you and the marketer would share separate but adjoining offices. The marketer would provide purchasers with a short list of attorneys, including you, and would encourage them to use your services. The purchaser would mail an engagement letter to the lawyer with a check for a flat fee for review of the trust documents. Each week you would pay the marketer an amount to cover rent, the amount of which would vary according to how many trusts were reviewed by you.

The Committee was of the opinion that the proposed arrangement would violate RPC 5.4(a) regarding sharing fees with non-lawyers, and (b) regarding forming a partnership with a non-lawyer for the purpose of the practice of law. The Committee was also of the opinion that such a relationship would violate RPC 7.2(c) in that it would be paying someone for the recommendation of your legal services.