DCBAR February 2001

Can unaffiliated lawyers share office space and staff without forming a firm, and what ethics rules must they follow?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that unaffiliated lawyers may share office space, staff, and equipment without forming a firm, but they must protect each client's confidences, preserve each lawyer's independence, avoid holding themselves out in a way that implies a firm or partnership that does not exist (in signage, letterhead, and how phones are answered), and recognize that conducting themselves as a firm or sharing access to confidential information can trigger imputed conflicts under Rule 1.10.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2001. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Opinion 303 (issued February 2001) addressed the ethics of unaffiliated lawyers sharing office space and services (or a solo lawyer renting from a firm) without associating their practices. The Committee concluded, like other jurisdictions, that nothing in the Rules prohibits sharing space, staff, equipment, or expenses, but that the arrangement raises issues the participating lawyers must manage.

On public confusion, the opinion concluded that under Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communications) and Rule 7.5 (firm names), the sharing lawyers may not present themselves as a firm when they are not. Common letterhead such as "The Law Offices of A, B and C," shared signage, directory listings, or a receptionist answering "Law Offices of A, B and C" would mislead the public; the opinion suggested neutral practices such as answering a shared line simply "Law Offices," displaying accurate signage, and disclaiming affiliation when a client appears confused.

On confidentiality, the opinion concluded each lawyer must protect client confidences under Rule 1.6, including securing paper and electronic files against access by the other lawyers and shared staff, being careful with shared fax lines, not discussing cases within earshot, and instructing shared employees on their confidentiality duties. On conflicts, it concluded that under Comment [1] to Rule 1.10, lawyers who merely share space and occasionally consult are not a "firm," but if they hold themselves out as a firm or have mutual access to each other's confidential client information, they may be treated as a firm and have conflicts imputed under Rule 1.10. That determination is fact-specific, and office-sharing has in some cases led to disqualification.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 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 unaffiliated lawyers share office space and staff?

A: The opinion concluded yes. Nothing in the Rules bars sharing space, staff, equipment, or expenses, so long as the lawyers protect confidentiality and independence and do not mislead the public about being a firm.

Q: How should a shared office avoid implying the lawyers are a firm?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyers must avoid letterhead, signage, or phone greetings suggesting a firm; it suggested answering the shared line simply "Law Offices," using accurate signage, and disclaiming affiliation when a client seems confused (Rules 7.1, 7.5).

Q: What confidentiality steps did the opinion call for?

A: The opinion concluded each lawyer must secure client files (paper and electronic) against access by the other lawyers and shared staff, be cautious with shared fax lines and case discussions, and instruct shared employees on confidentiality (Rule 1.6).

Q: Can office-sharing create imputed conflicts?

A: The opinion concluded it can. Mere space-sharing is not a "firm," but lawyers who hold themselves out as a firm or share access to each other's confidential information may be treated as a firm, imputing conflicts under Rule 1.10.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications) and Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) on public confusion, Rule 1.6 (confidentiality) on protecting client information in shared facilities, and Rules 1.7 and 1.10 (conflicts and imputation, including Comment [1]'s test for when shared-space lawyers are a "firm"). It cited prior D.C. Opinion 247 and opinions from numerous other jurisdictions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

D.C. RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
D.C. RPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
D.C. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
D.C. RPC 1.7, 1.10 / Model Rules 1.7, 1.10 (conflicts; imputation)

Cases:

In re Sexson, 613 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. 1993) (shared office created a reasonable belief of a single firm; imputed conflict)

Other opinions cited:

D.C. Ethics Opinion 247 (1994)
ABA Formal Op. 310 (1963); ABA Informal Ops. 1474 and 1486 (1982)

Source

Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-303

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2001 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.