Could a family law master receive a share of a former practice contingency fee after taking office?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Before becoming a family law master, the requester transferred a personal injury case to a former colleague under an agreement to split the eventual attorney fee equally. The arrangement had been explained to and accepted by the client. The colleague sometimes appeared before the family law master.
The Commission found nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting receipt of the fee on those facts: the percentage had been fixed before appointment, and the contingency fee arrangement was otherwise proper. The letter did not prescribe a separate disclosure procedure.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998, before West Virginia adopted its 2015 Code of Judicial Conduct, effective December 1, 2015. Subsequent rule changes or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on the letter's conclusion.
Common questions
Q: Could the family law master accept the fee share?
A: The Commission found no Code prohibition on the described prearranged, client-approved fee share.
Q: Did the letter require a special disclosure procedure?
A: No. It did not specify one in response to the requester’s question.
Background and rules framework
The Commission considered the Code of Judicial Conduct but cited no numbered Canon. It emphasized the timing of the fee agreement and the client’s knowledge and consent.
Citations and references
Other authorities cited:
- Missouri Advisory Opinion 62 (1981).
- U.S. Compendium of Selected Opinions § 2.7(b) (1995).
- New York Advisory Opinion 93-44.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 1998-14, redacted
- Code adoption date: West Virginia JIC 2015 Annual Report
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
Post Office Box 1629
Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1629
(304) 558-0169 FAX (304) 558-0831
Septembe r 28, 1998
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 1998-14
Dear
Your request for an advisory opinion was reviewed by the Judicial Investiga tion Commiss ion at its recent meeting. In your letter to the Commiss ion you requested an advisory opinion regarding certain funds you have received while in your current position as Family Law Master. You stated that prior to becoming Family Law Master you were employed in private
practice in
and upon your appointm ent to Family Law Master you agreed with your
former colleague to turn over a personal injury case you had been working on in which you had filed. You stated that your agreemen t was that upon final resolution of the matter your colleague and you would equally divide the attorney fee portion of the proceeds and that this division was explained and agreed to by the client. You indicated that you were concerne d that the receipt of any money while in office, whether it were prior to your appointm ent or not, from an attorney who occasiona lly practices before you could give the appearance of impropriety. You ask whether a simple disclosure of the fee paid would suffice or would other measures need to be tak.en.
When reviewing your request, the Commiss ion could find nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct which would prohibit you from accepting the fee since the percentage which you would receive was fixed before you be_came Family Law Master and the contingen cy fee arrangem ent was otherwise proper. For example, the arrangem ent was disclosed to the client who agreed to its provisions. See Missouri Advisory Opinion 62 (1981); U.S. Compend ium of Selected Opinions § 2.7(b) (1995); New York Advisory Opinion 93-44.
If there is any further question regarding this matter, do on hesitate to contact the Commiss ion.
Very trulx yo$'.
-~S )
CJJin
~~?A. (
W. Bennett, Chairman
JWB:nb
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1998. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace