May a Connecticut lawyer serving as estate administrator receive a referral fee from the estate's wrongful-death action?

Plain-English summary

The decedent's former lawyer became administrator because the named executors could not serve, referred the wrongful-death claim to experienced counsel, and planned to participate in the litigation. The estate's beneficiaries did not object to the referral fee.

Rule 1.5(e) permits lawyers in different firms to divide a fee when the client receives written notice of the sharing agreement and each lawyer's participation, does not object, and the total fee is reasonable. For this analysis, the administrator is the client and the Committee assumes a compliant contingent-fee agreement and statutory fee.

The referral opportunity creates a potential personal-interest conflict because the administrator must select counsel in the estate's best interests. The Committee finds the interests ordinarily aligned around obtaining a fair recovery, but notes that unusual timing or settlement circumstances could create a Rule 1.7(a)(2) conflict. It does not decide fiduciary-law or probate-court approval requirements.

In practice

Under this opinion, the ethics rules do not prohibit the referral fee merely because the lawyer is also estate administrator. The conclusion depends on Rule 1.5 compliance and the absence of a personal financial interest that materially limits the lawyer's work or estate decisions.

Common questions

Q: Does serving as administrator automatically bar a referral fee?

A: No. The Committee finds no automatic prohibition under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: Must the total fee be reasonable?

A: Yes. The opinion assumes Rule 1.5(e)(2) and statutory fee requirements are satisfied.

Q: Can the referral fee create a conflict?

A: Yes in unusual circumstances, such as when the lawyer's preference for a later, larger recovery conflicts with the estate's interest in an earlier settlement.

Q: Did the Committee decide whether probate-court approval is required?

A: No. It limits the opinion to ethics rules and does not decide fiduciary or probate-law requirements.

Background and rules framework

Rule 1.5(e) governs interfirm fee divisions, Rule 1.5(c) governs contingent-fee writings, Rule 1.7(a)(2) governs personal-interest conflicts, and Rule 5.4(a) prohibits sharing legal fees with nonlawyers.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rules 1.5(c), 1.5(e), 1.7(a)(2), and 5.4(a)

Statutes:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-251e

See also

• CT Informal Op. 16-04: Conserved-person referral fee
• CT Informal Op. 20-02: Out-of-state referral fees

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
• Original PDF: Informal Opinion 16-03