May a Connecticut lawyer accept a workers' compensation file referred by a nonlawyer accredited representative?

Plain-English summary

Connecticut law permits an injured worker to appear before the Workers' Compensation Commission through a qualified accredited representative. The proposed arrangement used an hourly fee for that representative and a separate contingent fee for the lawyer. None of the lawyer's fee would pay the representative, directly or indirectly.

The Committee concludes that this separation avoids prohibited fee sharing under Rule 5.4(a), and the absence of any referral payment satisfies Rule 7.2(c). The opinion does not decide the different situation in which the representative's compensation depends on the worker's ultimate recovery, noting that such an arrangement could at least appear to share the lawyer's fee.

The worker must make an informed and independent choice of counsel. The representative cannot require or imply that the worker must use the recommended lawyer. After the referral, the lawyer must preserve an ordinary attorney-client relationship, including independent judgment, loyalty, communication, client control of objectives and settlement, and confidentiality. Rule 5.4(c) bars the representative from directing the lawyer's work.

In practice

Under this opinion, the file referral is permissible only when the nonlawyer's earned hourly or per-hearing compensation is fixed independently of the lawyer's work and recovery, and when neither the referral relationship nor expected future business compromises the worker's choice or the lawyer's professional judgment.

Common questions

Q: Is the nonlawyer's hourly fee shared with the lawyer?

A: No on the stated facts. The representative's hourly fee is separate and quantifiable when the lawyer takes over, while the lawyer's contingent fee does not fund it.

Q: May the lawyer pay the representative for the referral?

A: No. The opinion requires that no referral fee or other item of value be given directly or indirectly for recommending the lawyer.

Q: Can the representative choose the lawyer for the injured worker?

A: No. The worker must remain free to explore other options and decide which lawyer, if any, to retain.

Q: May the representative direct the case after referral?

A: No. Rule 5.4(c) prohibits a person who recommends the lawyer from directing or regulating the lawyer's professional judgment.

Q: What if the representative's fee is a percentage of recovery?

A: The Committee does not decide that arrangement. It notes a risk of prohibited fee sharing when the representative's compensation depends partly on the lawyer's later work and the ultimate recovery.

Background and rules framework

Rules 5.4(a) and 5.4(c) govern nonlawyer fee sharing and interference with professional judgment. Rule 7.2(c) prohibits value given for a recommendation. Rules 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 preserve the client's control, communication, confidentiality, loyalty, and the lawyer's independent judgment.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rules 5.4(a), 5.4(c), 5.5(a), 7.2(c), 1.7, 1.4, 1.2, and 1.6

Statutes and court rules:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-298, 31-327(b), 51-87, and 51-88
• Connecticut Practice Book § 2-44A

Cases:

• Cutler v. State of Connecticut/DMR Region 4, 3506 CRB-07-96-12, 1998 WL 220047 (Conn. Work. Comp. Comm. 1998), qualification of an accredited representative

See also

• Virginia LEO 1572: For-profit nonlawyer referral service
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-2: Cross-referrals with a nonlawyer
• New Mexico Ethics Op. 1993-1: Nonlawyer referral networks

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
• Original PDF: Informal Opinion 18-04