Can a lawyer keep an office inside a corporate client's claims department to handle the company's claims and defense work?

Plain-English summary

A corporation ran its own claims department, in offices separate from its other operations and at a different address, to handle claims against the corporation and the drivers of its vehicles. A member asked whether an attorney may ethically defend the corporation and its drivers from the claims-department premises, where the attorney would not otherwise practice law at that address.

The committee said the attorney may properly maintain an office in the claims department for that purpose. It had no reservation where the attorney serves as house counsel and renders no legal services for other clients at the company's address or elsewhere from that office, assuming he carries on his other practice at a different address. The committee allowed this provided the arrangement does not result in "feeding" legal representation to the attorney, either at the corporate address or at his private offices, and drew particular attention to the representation of individual employees of the corporation, saying the better practice would be to decline such representation. It invited attention especially to Canon 27's prohibition on advertising or soliciting professional representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canons 27 and 35 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the lawyer's professional independence is now governed by Rule 4-5.4 and solicitation by Rule 4-7.18 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 5.4 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer office inside the client's claims department?

A: Yes, for handling settlement and defense of claims against the corporation and its drivers, provided he carries on his other law practice at a different address.

Q: What was the main limit?

A: No "feeding" of legal work. The committee allowed the arrangement only if it did not channel legal representation to the attorney at either the corporate address or his private office.

Q: What about representing the company's individual employees?

A: The committee said particular attention was warranted there, and that the better practice would be to decline representing individual employees.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 27 (advertising and solicitation) and 35 (professional independence) of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Those subjects are now addressed by Rule 4-5.4 (professional independence) and Rule 4-7.18 (solicitation) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 5.4 and 7.3). The committee's concern was that an office inside the client not become a channel for soliciting or feeding additional legal business.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27 [Canons of Professional Ethics; advertising and solicitation; see current Rule 4-7.18]
• Canon 35 [professional independence; see current Rule 4-5.4]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 64-33: Estate Analyses Prepared for an Insurer's Prospects
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 64-70: Preparing Estate Analyses for Insurance Agents

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-64-38/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-64-38.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 64-38
July 3, 1964
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney may maintain an office in the claims department of a corporate client for the purpose of handling settlement of claims and defense of actions brought against the corporation, provided that the attorney carries on his other law practice at a different address.
Canons: 27, 35
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar requests our opinion as to the following circumstances. A corporation maintains its own claims department for handling claims brought against the corporation and drivers of its motor vehicles. The claims department maintains offices separate and apart from other offices of the corporation and it is located at a different address. He desires to know if an attorney may ethically defend the corporation and/or drivers of its vehicles in an action at law if the attorney handles such matters from the premises of the claims department. The attorney would not be engaged in the practice of law otherwise at the address of the claims office.
It is the opinion of this Committee that an attorney may properly maintain an office in the claims department of the corporate client for the purpose of handling from that office settlement of claims made against the corporation and defense of actions at law brought against the corporation and/or drivers of its vehicles.
The Committee has no reservation whatsoever, given the circumstances wherein the attorney serves as house counsel for the corporate client and does not render legal services for any other clients at the company's address or at any other address. It is assumed, however, that the attorney will carry on other law practice at a different address. This the Committee considers permissible provided the attorney does not allow the arrangement to result in "feeding" of legal representation to the attorney either at the corporate address or at the address of the attorney's private offices. In this respect, particular attention should be given to representation of individual employees of the corporation. The better practice would be to decline such representation.
Attention is invited especially to the provisions of Canon 27 which prohibit the advertising or solicitation of professional representation.