Can a Florida lawyer also run a separate business or work as an officer of a company?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed whether a lawyer may also be engaged in a separate, non-legal business. It concluded there was no reason a lawyer could not be engaged in an independent business, citing Drinker at page 221.

The committee attached two conditions. The lawyer may not commingle the two undertakings, and may not use the other business as a feeder for the law practice. The opinion added that the lawyer may be an officer and employee of another corporation under the same limitations.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1963, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the subject is now addressed by Rule 4-5.7 (responsibilities regarding nonlegal services) and Rule 4-7.18 (direct contact with prospective clients) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 5.7 and 7.3). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer own or operate a business outside the practice of law?

A: Yes. The committee concluded there was no reason a lawyer could not be engaged in an independent business, so long as he did not commingle it with the law practice or use it as a feeder for legal work.

Q: Can a lawyer be an officer and employee of a corporation?

A: Yes, under the same limitations. The opinion stated the lawyer may be an officer and employee of another corporation provided he does not commingle that role with the law practice or use it as a feeder.

Q: What does it mean that the business cannot be a "feeder"?

A: The opinion used the term without defining it further, drawing on Drinker at page 221. In the language of the then-governing Canon 27, a "feeder" was a separate business operated to channel or solicit legal work to the lawyer; the opinion's limitation barred using the outside business for that purpose.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which addressed advertising and solicitation, including the feeder doctrine. The lawyer's responsibilities when providing or being associated with nonlegal services are now addressed by Rule 4-5.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 5.7), and the solicitation concerns underlying the feeder limitation are addressed by Rule 4-7.18 (Model Rule 7.3). The opinion relied on Drinker, Legal Ethics, at page 221.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27 [Canons of Professional Ethics; advertising and solicitation; see current Rules 4-5.7, 4-7.18]

Other authorities:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 221

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-26: Lawyer Owning Bail Bond Stock
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 73-17: Lawyer Stock in Fee Insurer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-63-12/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-63-12.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 63-12
July 8, 1963
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may engage in an independent business so long as he does not commingle it with his law practice and use the business as a feeder for his law practice. He may be an officer and employee of a corporation under the same limitations.
Canon: 27
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
There is no reason why a lawyer cannot be engaged in an independent business so long as he does not commingle the two and use the other business as a feeder for his law business. See Drinker, p. 221. The lawyer may be an officer and employee of another corporation under the same limitations.