May a Connecticut lawyer practice simultaneously in two or more law firms?

Plain-English summary

The Rules do not prohibit simultaneous affiliation with more than one firm. For conflict purposes, however, the lawyer, every associated firm, and the lawyers in those firms must be viewed together under Rule 1.10. Conflict systems must operate when affiliations begin and whenever any associated lawyer considers a new matter.

Cross-firm checks require enough information to detect conflicts, but Rules 1.6, 1.9(c), and 1.18 protect information about current, former, and prospective clients. The lawyer may need informed consent before circulating information, and cloud systems used across firms require particular care. Screening arrangements also must ensure a disqualified lawyer receives no part of the affected fee where the rule requires that result.

Rules 7.1, 7.5, and 1.4 require ongoing disclosure of all firm affiliations and clarity about which firm and lawyers handle the matter and their jurisdictional limits. Depending on authority and supervision, Rules 5.1, 5.3, and 5.5 govern firm compliance and unauthorized practice. Rule 1.15(b) continues to govern where client funds are held.

In practice

Under this opinion, multiple-firm practice is permissible only with an integrated compliance structure. A conflict or disqualification arising through one affiliation can reach the other firms, while confidentiality may limit the information available to run those checks.

Common questions

Q: Are simultaneous firm affiliations prohibited?

A: No. The Committee concludes that the Connecticut Rules permit them.

Q: Must conflict checks cover every affiliated firm?

A: Yes. The opinion treats the firms and their lawyers as a single lawyer for Rule 1.10 imputation purposes.

Q: May client names and matters be shared freely for conflict checks?

A: No. Confidentiality duties may require informed consent before enough information is circulated across separate firms.

Q: Must clients know about every affiliation?

A: Yes. The opinion requires ongoing disclosure so communications and professional designations are not misleading and clients can make informed decisions.

Q: Do supervision and unauthorized-practice rules still apply?

A: Yes. Lawyers with managerial or supervisory authority must address compliance, and Connecticut work must satisfy Rule 5.5 and Practice Book § 2-44A.

Background and rules framework

Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.18(c), and 1.8(k) govern conflicts and imputation. Rules 1.6, 1.9(c), and 1.18(b) protect client information. Rules 7.1, 7.5, and 1.4 govern affiliation disclosures; Rules 5.1, 5.3, and 5.5 govern supervision and authorization; and Rule 1.15(b) governs client funds.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rules 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8(k), 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.15(b), 1.18, 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 7.1, and 7.5

Court rules:

• Connecticut Practice Book § 2-44A

Other opinions cited:

• Connecticut Informal Opinion 2013-07, cloud computing
• Connecticut Informal Opinion 02-09, lawyers listed on firm letterhead
• District of Columbia Ethics Opinion 338, multiple-firm practice
• New York State Bar Opinion 944, multiple firm affiliations
• ABA Informal Opinions 1253 and 83-1499

See also

• DC Bar Ethics Op. 338: Of counsel to one firm and partner in another
• Florida Ethics Op. 93-7: Practicing in two firms
• Ohio Ethics Op. 2013-001: Simultaneous practice in multiple firms

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
• Original PDF: Informal Opinion 15-06