Could a former partner keep control of cases a departing associate took, and how were overlapping fees treated?

Short answer The opinion required reasonable fees and no double billing, denied control to the former partner absent client-approved co-counsel status, and placed lawyer choice with the client.

Bar

MOLEC

Issued

1993

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30, formal opinions are binding; informal opinions are advisory. Source.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A former associate and partner disputed fee allocation and whether the former partner could keep control over cases the associate took.

The office declined to decide factual disputes. It cited Rule 1.5's reasonable-fee requirement and said the client could not be billed twice for the same work. The former partner had a right to control only as co-counsel with the client's knowledge and consent. The client decided who would serve as lawyer.

Currency note

This 1993 opinion predates Missouri's 2007 amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. An official reference note identifies July 1, 2007 amendments to Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did the office divide the fees?

A: No. It said it could not decide the factual dispute.

Q: Could the client be billed twice for the same representation?

A: No. Each lawyer had to ensure that did not happen.

Q: When could the former partner control the case?

A: Only when acting as co-counsel with the client's knowledge and consent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 1.5 to reasonable fees after a lawyer's departure and addressed client choice and co-counsel status.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

Missouri Rule 1.5

Source

Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/930121/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Former associate and partner disagree regarding apportionment of fees and right of former partner to have continuing control over cases associate took. ANSWER: This office cannot make factual determinations but Rule 1.5 requires lawyer´s fee to be reasonable. It is incumbent on each to ensure that client is not billed twice for the same representation. Former partner only has right to control cases if former partner is acting as co-counsel with the knowledge and consent of the client. The decision on who the attorney will be belongs to the client.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1993. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct 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