Can a law firm let a marriage counselor use its office part-time to counsel the firm's domestic-relations clients?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer whose firm did a great deal of domestic-relations work sought approval of an arrangement to make professional counseling more available to the firm's clients. He explained that sending clients to psychiatrists was costly, that no qualified marriage counselors practiced in his area, and that one highly qualified counselor did not want to work full-time and so could not feasibly rent or buy her own office. He asked whether the firm could let her use the law office facilities to counsel domestic-relations clients referred by the firm's attorneys, on the conditions that her use not be advertised, her name not appear on the letterhead, she not be held out as a firm member, she not solicit, and she use the space about one day a week. The counselor would be paid directly by the client.

Seven members of the committee concluded that the arrangement, subject to strict compliance with the stated restrictions, would not be objectionable, describing it as a somewhat novel clinical scheme that afforded the basis for a valuable public service and observing that the Bar need not cling to traditional forms to preserve traditional values. Measured by client interest and public service, the committee gave an affirmative answer. Two members would have disapproved the proposal; one observed that the adverse party would be coming to opposing counsel's office without his own lawyer, which he felt would make it difficult for the counselor to render advice adverse to her proprietor.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Rules Regulating The Florida Bar before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a law firm share its office with a nonlawyer marriage counselor for its clients?

A: Under this opinion, yes, on strict conditions. A majority found the arrangement unobjectionable so long as the counselor's use was not advertised, her name was off the letterhead, she was not held out as a firm member, she did not solicit, and the use was part-time.

Q: How was the counselor to be paid?

A: The opinion noted that the counselor would be paid directly by the client, not through the firm.

Q: Did every committee member agree?

A: No. Seven members approved and two would have disapproved; one of the dissenters worried that an adverse party would be coming to opposing counsel's office without his own lawyer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed a firm making a related, nonlegal service (marriage counseling) available to clients through a nonlawyer using the firm's office, with conditions aimed at preventing the counselor from being advertised, listed on the letterhead, or held out as part of the firm. In current Florida practice the holding-out and firm-name concerns are addressed in Rule 4-7.21, and the provision of law-related services maps to Model Rule 5.7; the Model Rule analogues here are Rules 5.7 and 7.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR (Code of Professional Responsibility) generally; no specific disciplinary rule cited

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-26: A Lawyer's Stock in a Bail Bond Business
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 73-20: A Lawyer-Owned Jury-Investigation Service
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 73-17: Owning Stock in a Legal-Fee Insurer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-72-4/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-72-4-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 72-4
March 16, 1972
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is ethical for a law firm to allow a marriage counselor to use the law office facilities for the purpose of counseling domestic relations clients that are referred to her by attorneys of the firm, provided there will be no advertisement of the fact that the counselor is using the office, her name will not appear on the firm letterhead, she will not be held out as a member of the firm, there would be no solicitation on her part, and the office space is used on a part-time basis.
Chairman Clarkson stated the opinion of the committee:
A lawyer whose firm does a great deal of domestic relations work seeks our approval of an arrangement which would make professional counseling more readily available to the firm's clients. After indicating his reluctance to send clients to psychiatrists for counseling because of the cost involved, he further observes that there are no qualified marriage counselors practicing in his area. His letter of inquiry continues:
. . . there is one highly qualified counselor who is married with a family and who doesn't want to counsel on a full time basis. Since this is the case, it would not be feasible for her to rent or buy office space, when she would use it only one or two days a week. Therefore, my question is this:
Is it ethical for a law firm to allow a qualified marriage counselor to use the law office facilities for the purpose of counseling domestic relations clients that are referred to her by attorneys in the firm, if there will be no advertisement of the fact that the counselor is using the office, her name will not appear on our letterhead, we will not hold her out as a member of the firm, there will be no solicitation on her part, and she would use the office space only one day a week?
The inquiring attorney also proposes that the counselor would be paid directly by the client.
Seven members of the Committee have concluded that the proposed arrangement, subject to strict compliance with the restrictions as stated, would not be objectionable. Although the format of this clinical scheme is somewhat novel, it appears to afford the basis for a valuable public service.
Contemporary demands of our changing society cry out for accommodation by the legal profession of new roles and relationships. The Bar need not cling to traditional forms in order to preserve traditional values. Such innovative concepts as "no fault divorce," "no fault insurance," group legal services and computerized research, to name only a few, require us to keep pace with the interests which we serve. The public is entitled to nothing less.
Measured by the tests of client interest and public service, the question posed justifies an affirmative answer.
Two committeemen would disapprove the proposal. One points out that the adverse party would be coming to opposing counsel's office without his own lawyer, a circumstance which he feels would make it difficult for the counselor to render advice adverse to her proprietor.