Can a law firm share office space and a reception area with a financial-planning business that is also its client?

Plain-English summary

A law firm's client, a financial-planning business, proposed that the firm open a branch office in the building the planners occupied, to better serve the two firms' many mutual clients (the firm's three partners also lived in that town). Under the proposal the firm would occupy part of the planners' space but keep its offices separately identified, with its own telephone lines, staff, books, and records; the two firms would share a common reception area and miscellaneous items such as copying machines. The inquiry asked whether the shared-space arrangement violated the Code.

The committee reviewed its prior opinions on shared space between lawyers and non-lawyer businesses. Opinion 326 approved a lawyer and an insurance broker in adjoining offices with a common waiting room, absent any indication of a formal association or that the insurance office was a source of business. Opinion 431 approved an attorney renting rooms to a tax practitioner where there was no fee-sharing, no referral of legal business, and no holding out as an associate. Opinion 203 required that any shared-space arrangement clearly separate the names and businesses of each (see also Opinion 85-3).

The committee noted the Illinois Rules contain no specific provision governing shared space, and concluded that, subject to the rules on solicitation (Rule 7.3), preservation of client confidences (Rule 1.6), and improper division of fees (Rule 5.4), the proposed arrangement does not violate the Code.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in November 1990, under the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and before Illinois adopted the 2010 Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rules 1.6, 5.4, and 7.3), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a law firm share office space with a nonlawyer business?

A: The opinion concluded yes; nothing in the Rules specifically bars it, provided the firm observes the rules on solicitation, client confidences, and division of fees.

Q: Does it matter that the nonlawyer business is also the firm's client and shares clients with it?

A: Per the opinion, the arrangement is still permissible, but the firm must keep its offices separately identified and avoid improper solicitation or fee-sharing arising from the mutual clientele.

Q: What conditions did the committee attach?

A: The opinion concluded the arrangement is proper subject to Rule 7.3 (solicitation), Rule 1.6 (preservation of client confidences), and Rule 5.4 (no improper division of fees), and to clearly separating the names and businesses of each.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 7.3 (solicitation), Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), and Rule 5.4 (professional independence and division of fees with nonlawyers). These correspond to ABA Model Rules 7.3, 1.6, and 5.4. The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rules 1.6, 5.4, and 7.3.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois RPC 7.3, 5.4, 1.6 (1990 Rules, applied in the opinion)
• MR 1.6 (confidentiality), MR 5.4 (professional independence), MR 7.3 (solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinion Nos. 326, 431, 203, 85-3: prior shared-space arrangements between lawyers and nonlawyer businesses, requiring separate identification and no fee-sharing or referral association

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 88-08: A Collection Client's Staff Fielding Calls in the Firm's Name
• ISBA Ethics Op. 89-17: Who Is the Client When an Insurer's Staff Lawyer Defends the Insured

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9006