Can a lawyer share office space, a waiting room, and overhead with a non-lawyer such as a CPA?

Plain-English summary

The Committee considered whether it is unethical for a lawyer to share office space with a certified public accountant, where one door bears both names (each plainly identified as lawyer and CPA), there is a shared waiting room, the CPA shares office expenses including the secretary's reception services and use of the attorney's tax materials, the attorney's practice is largely tax and estate planning, there is no fee splitting (though the attorney sometimes hires the CPA for computations, billed as overhead or itemized with client approval), and the two occasionally recommend each other's services without any fee splitting.

The opinion concluded there was nothing unethical in the situation. It reasoned that an association between a lawyer and a public accountant is unethical only when it is or could be used as a feeder of legal business to the lawyer, as an indirect method of advertising the lawyer's services, or as a method of sharing fees or responsibility for legal business between the lawyer and a layman.

The opinion concluded that none of those elements existed on the facts presented and that every precaution appeared to have been taken to avoid them; the sharing of office space was merely for the physical convenience of both parties, and there was nothing improper in that, provided the proper safeguards were maintained. The opinion also noted, citing ABA Informal Decision C 630, that a law firm may share a suite with an insurance business so long as care is taken to prevent that business from directing legal work to the firm.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1968, before the Alaska Bar Association's adoption of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (it applies the former Canons of Professional Ethics) and before the 2009 revisions to those rules. The rules on sharing fees with nonlawyers, professional independence, and solicitation have since been recodified. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific point mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer share an office suite and waiting room with a CPA?

A: The opinion concluded yes, where the arrangement is merely for physical convenience and the proper safeguards are maintained.

Q: What makes a lawyer-layman office arrangement unethical?

A: Per the opinion, the arrangement is unethical only when it is or could be used as a feeder of legal business, as indirect advertising of the lawyer's services, or as a means of sharing fees or responsibility for legal business with a layman.

Q: Could the lawyer and the CPA recommend each other?

A: On the facts, the opinion treated occasional mutual recommendations, with no fee splitting, as not improper, noting the lawyer would recommend the CPA on the strength of his proficiency regardless of the space arrangement.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former Canons; cf. Model Rules):

• Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics (advertising; the feeder concern) (cf. Model Rule 7.2)
• Prohibition on sharing fees or responsibility for legal business with a layman (cf. Model Rule 5.4)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Decision C 630 (2/27/63): law firm sharing a suite with an insurance business

See also

• Alaska Ethics Op. 79-3: Law Firm Employing an Accountant
• Alaska Ethics Op. 74-2: Propriety of Referral Fees
• Alaska Ethics Op. 69-4: Lawyers in the "Anchorage Legal Center" Building

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/68-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Ethics Opinion No. 68-1
Propriety of Law Office Sharing Office Space with Non-Lawyer.
In my opinion it would not be unethical for a law firm to have a branch
office in the same suite as an insurance business so long as care is taken to
prevent the insurance business from becoming a means of directing legal
business to the law firm. See American Bar Association Informal Decision No.
C 630 2/27/63.
You have inquired whether the sharing of office space by a lawyer and a
public accountant is unethical from the point of view of the lawyer under the
following circumstances:
1.
There is one entrance to the suite of offices on which the lawyer's
name and the certified public accountant's name appear. Both names are
separate and the fact that one is a lawyer and the other is a certified public
accountant plainly appear, but they are both on the same door.
2.

There is one waiting room for both private offices.

3.
The certified public accountant shares part of the expense of the
office including an agreed amount for the reception services of the attorney's
secretary and an agreed amount for the use of the attorney's tax books and
loose leaf tax services.
4.
planning.

Most of the attorney's practice is in the area of taxation and estate

5.
There is no fee splitting, but the attorney hires the certified public
accountant from time to time to make computations on tax cases being
handled by the attorney. In such cases the agreed fee of the certified public
accountant is either absorbed in the general overhead of the attorney or is
added to the attorney's bill to the client as a separate itemized charge. The
latter is done only with the advance approval of the client.
6.
Where a client of the attorney is in need of accounting services and
does not have his own accountant, the attorney occasionally recommends the
certified public accountant. This is not directly related to the space sharing
arrangement, since, because of the certified public accountant's proficiency,
the attorney would probably recommend his services in such cases if there
were no space splitting arrangement. In such cases there is, of course, no fee
splitting arrangement.
7.
The certified public accountant also has a high regard for the
proficiency of the attorney in tax matters and occasionally recommends the
1

attorney's services to his clients in need of tax assistance. There is, of course,
no fee splitting in these situations.
We find nothing unethical in such a situation. An association between a
lawyer and a public accountant is unethical only when it is or could be used as
a "feeder" of legal business to the lawyer, as an indirect method of advertising
the lawyer's services, or as a method of sharing fees or responsibility for legal
business between the lawyer and a layman. In your situation none of these
elements exist, and every precaution appears to have been taken to avoid them.
The sharing of office space is merely for the physical convenience of both
parties, and in this we find nothing improper, provided the proper safeguards
are maintained.
Adopted by Board of Governors on December 14, 1968.

2