Can a Florida lawyer practice law and real estate from the same office?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed whether an attorney can engage in the practice of law and real estate from the same office, with the inquiring lawyer asking specifically in light of the advertising changes then recently permitted. The committee explained that it had long taken the position that the two professions must be conducted from offices that are functionally and geographically separate, a conclusion based on the former DR 2-102(E) and the prior Opinion 73-18 (since withdrawn).

The committee then recognized the deletion of the old DR 2-102(E) from the new Disciplinary Rule 2-102, as promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in its July 26, 1979 decision amending the Code of Professional Responsibility. In view of that revision, it concluded that the proposed conduct appears no longer prohibited. The committee cautioned, however, that the "feeder" aspect of the association may lead to direct solicitation not protected by the Bates decision or the recent advertising-related Code changes.

Currency note

This opinion was issued around 1979, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

The official PDF of this opinion does not carry a printed issuance date. The opinion references a July 26, 1979 rule amendment and the 1977 Bates decision, which place it around 1979.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer run a law practice and a real estate business from one office?

A: The opinion concluded a lawyer may do so, after the deletion of the former DR 2-102(E) that had required the two professions to be kept separate.

Q: Were the two practices once required to be kept apart?

A: Yes. The opinion explained the committee had long required the two professions to be conducted from functionally and geographically separate offices.

Q: What concern did the opinion flag?

A: The opinion cautioned that the "feeder" aspect of the association may lead to direct solicitation not protected by Bates or the recent advertising-related Code changes.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former CPR DR 2-102(E) and the revised DR 2-102 after the July 26, 1979 amendment. The communication and solicitation concerns correspond to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.3 (Florida Rules 4-7.14 and 4-7.18).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR DR 2-102(E); DR 2-102 (Model Rules 7.1, 7.3)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), commercial-speech protection for lawyer advertising

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Ethics Opinion 73-18 (since withdrawn)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 79-3: Advertising Status as a Registered Real Estate Broker
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 79-4: Lawyer Holding a Real Estate Broker's License
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 88-15: Dual Professions and Sharing Office Space

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-78-14/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-78-14-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 78-14
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney may engage in the practice of law and real estate from the same office.
CPR: DR 2-102(E), DR 2-102
Opinions: 73-18
Case: Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed. 2d 810 (1977)
Vice chairman Mead stated that opinion of the committee:
The issue presented is whether an attorney can engage in the practice of law and real estate from the same office. The inquiring lawyer requests a response specifically in light of "the advertising edicts permitted by recent changes relative to advertisement."
It has long been the Committee's position that the two professions must be conducted from offices that are functionally and geographically separate. This conclusion was based on DR 2-102(E), which prohibited the dual practice presented here, and our prior opinion 73-18 [since withdrawn]. However, we now recognize the deletion of the old DR 2-102(E) from the new Disciplinary Rule 2-102 as promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in its decision of July 26, 1979, amending the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar.
In view of the above revision of DR 2-102, the proposed conduct appears to be no longer prohibited. We caution the attorney, however, that the "feeder" aspect of this association may lead to direct solicitation not protected by the Bates decision or the recent changes in the Code related to advertising.