Can a New Hampshire partner sell their firm or a practice area to an associate while continuing to practice law, without retiring?

Plain-English summary

The opinion answers whether a New Hampshire partner can "switch roles" with an associate by selling the firm or a practice area to the associate while staying in private practice. The Committee concludes that New Hampshire's Rule 1.17 prohibits this: a non-retiring partner cannot sell the firm or practice area and remain in the private practice of law in New Hampshire. It notes that New Hampshire's rule is more restrictive than some other states' versions, which the opinion contrasts with Nebraska (whose rule does not require the seller to leave practice and treats a sale to an existing associate as not a "sale" under the rule) and North Carolina (whose rule allows the seller to keep practicing with the purchaser in limited ways).

Walking through Rule 1.17's conditions, the opinion explains that the selling attorney must cease the private practice of law or the sold area in New Hampshire (1.17(a)); the entire firm or area must be sold, not just the lucrative parts, to protect clients with less profitable matters; the sale must be to one or more lawyers or firms, not a non-lawyer (1.17(b)); the selling attorney must give written notice to active and inactive clients of the proposed sale, their right to retain other counsel or take their files, and the ninety-day presumption of consent (1.17(c)); fees may not be increased because of the sale (1.17(d)); where notice cannot be given, the representation transfers to the successor without prior court authorization (1.17(e), differing from the ABA Model Rule); and the successor must take possession of inactive and archival files, publish notice in a local newspaper, and notify the New Hampshire Bar Association (1.17(f)).

Applying the rule to a partner-to-associate transfer, the opinion explains that selling the whole practice requires the partner to leave New Hampshire practice, while selling only an area lets the partner continue elsewhere but bars accepting any matters in the sold area, including as co-counsel or through a Rule 1.5(e) fee division. It distinguishes a "sale" from other transitions: ABA Comment 14 treats retirement from a partnership, retirement plans, and the sale of tangible assets as outside the rule, so the partner might consider merging with the associate instead. The opinion flags related duties on competence in choosing a qualified purchaser, conflicts and informed consent (Rules 1.1, 1.7), protecting client information (Rules 1.6, 1.9), terminating representation (Rule 1.16), safekeeping client funds (Rule 1.15), and not sharing fees with non-lawyers (Rule 5.4), and notes neither seller nor buyer may bill clients for time spent only on transitioning matters.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under New Hampshire's Rule 1.17 as it stood when issued, a non-retiring partner cannot sell the firm or a practice area to an associate and keep practicing in New Hampshire; the seller must cease the private practice of law (or the sold area) in the state. A partner selling only one area may continue in others but must stop accepting matters in the sold area. The opinion treats a merger, retirement from a partnership, or sale of tangible assets as transitions outside Rule 1.17, and points to the related duties of competence, conflict-checking and consent, confidentiality, termination, and safekeeping that attend any sale. It also notes the difference between New Hampshire's rule and the more permissive Nebraska and North Carolina approaches.

Common questions

Q: Can a New Hampshire partner sell the firm to an associate and keep practicing?

A: No. The opinion concludes that under Rule 1.17 a non-retiring partner cannot sell the firm or practice area to an associate while remaining in the private practice of law in New Hampshire.

Q: What if the partner sells only one practice area?

A: The opinion explains the partner may continue practicing in other areas but must cease accepting any matters in the sold area, including as counsel, co-counsel, or through a Rule 1.5(e) fee division.

Q: Is there a way to transition the practice without triggering Rule 1.17?

A: The opinion notes that ABA Comment 14 treats retirement from a partnership, retirement plans, and the sale of tangible assets as outside the rule, and suggests the partner might consider merging with the associate rather than selling.

Q: What notice does Rule 1.17 require to clients?

A: Written notice to active and inactive clients of the proposed sale, the right to retain other counsel or take possession of the file, and that consent to transfer is presumed if the client does not act or object within ninety days.

Q: Does New Hampshire's rule match the ABA Model Rule and other states?

A: Not exactly. The opinion notes New Hampshire's 1.17(e) eliminates the need for prior court authorization to transfer files, and that Nebraska and North Carolina interpret their analogous rules more permissively for sales to associates.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New Hampshire Rule 1.17 (sale of a law practice), condition by condition, alongside the Ethics Committee and ABA comments to the rule. It connects the analysis to Rule 1.5(e) (division of fees), Rule 5.3(c) and Rule 5.4 (nonlawyer involvement and fee sharing), Rule 1.1 (competence in selecting a purchaser), Rule 1.7 and Rule 1.0(e) (conflicts and informed consent), Rules 1.6 and 1.9 (protecting client information), Rule 1.16 (terminating representation), and Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property). It also draws on ABA Formal Op. 468 and on its own prior Opinion 2020-21/03.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.17 / NH Rule 1.17(a)-(f) (sale of a law practice)
• MR 1.5 / NH Rule 1.5(e) (division of fees)
• MR 1.1 / NH Rule 1.1 (competence)
• MR 1.7 / NH Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest)
• MR 1.6, 1.9 / NH Rules 1.6, 1.9 (confidentiality; former clients)
• MR 1.16 / NH Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation)
• NH Rules 1.15 (safekeeping property), 5.4 (fee sharing), 5.3(c) (nonlawyer assistance)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 468 (2014), Facilitating the Sale of a Law Practice
• ABA Model Rule 1.17 Comments 1-14
• NH Ethics Committee Advisory Op. 2020-21/03, Dealing with a Deceased or Incapacitated Sole Practitioner's Practice
• NH Ethics Committee Advisory Op. 2015-16/05, Client File Retention
• Nebraska Supreme Court Lawyers' Advisory Committee Op. 13-03; North Carolina 98 Formal Ethics Opinion 6

See also

• NH Bar Ethics Op. 2020-21/03: Winding Up a Deceased or Incapacitated Solo Practice
• ABA Formal Op. 468: Facilitating the Sale of a Law Practice
• NC State Bar 98 FEO 6: Sale of a Law Firm to Lawyers Employed by the Firm

Source

• Landing page: https://www.nhbar.org/2023-24-01-the-sale-of-a-firm-or-practice-area-by-a-non-retiring-attorney/
• Original PDF: https://nhba.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/15112613/EO-2023-24-01-The-Sale-of-a-Firm-or-Practice-Area-by-a-Non-Retiring-Attorney-F%E2%80%8CINAL-2-22-24.pdf

Original opinion text

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR ASSOCIATION
The Sale of a Firm or Practice Area by a Non-Retiring Attorney
Ethics Committee Opinion #2023-24/01
ABSTRACT:
A New Hampshire attorney who is a Partner in their firm cannot sell their practice or firm to an
Associate if they are not retiring from the practice of the law in the State of New Hampshire.
ANNOTATIONS:
A New Hampshire attorney who is a Partner at their firm cannot “switch roles” with an Associate
by selling their firm or practice area to the Associate while remaining in the private practice of
the law. The sale of a firm or practice area by a non-retiring attorney is prohibited by New
Hampshire’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.17.
OPINION:
Introduction
In New Hampshire, the ethical ramifications and responsibilities related to succession and selling
a law firm (or area of practice) are addressed in N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17 and both the Ethics
Committee and ABA Comments to the Rule. This Rule prohibits a New Hampshire attorney
who is a Partner at their firm from remaining in the private practice of the law if they sell their
firm or practice area, including to an Associate at their firm. While other jurisdictions and bar
associations have interpreted their state equivalents to Rule 1.17 in a way that would permit an
attorney to essentially “switch” roles with an Associate i, New Hampshire’s rule is more
restrictive.
Analysis of Rule 1.17
The Rule and its Policy Considerations
N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17 permits “[a] lawyer or a law firm [to] sell or purchase a law
practice, or an area of law practice, including good will” if each of the required conditions are
met. See N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17; See also N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(a)-(f). These
conditions reflect many of the important policy considerations described within the Statement of
Purpose of the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct (for example, “[p]rofessionalism
encompasses civility, competence, conscience, contribution to the quality of the legal system
including equal access to the courts, and public service.”). These conditions also reflect ABA
Comment 1 to the Model Rules, which states “[t]he practice of law is a profession, not merely a
business. Clients are not commodities that can be purchased and sold at will.” As such, reserving
client rights and protecting their confidential information, files, and confidences, is a critical part
of an attorney’s ethical duties.
Conditions to the Rule

                                               1

(a) The Selling Attorney ii Must Cease to Engage in the Private Practice of the Law or
the Practice Area Being Sold
The first condition of Rule 1.17 is that the Selling Attorney cease to engage in the private
practice of law, or in that specific practice area that is being sold, in the State of New Hampshire.
See N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(a).
Based on the ABA Comments to the Model Rules, if the Selling Attorney is just selling one part
of their practice, then the attorney is permitted to practice in other areas. See ABA Comment 5
to Model Rule 1.17 (providing, for instance, a scenario where a “lawyer with a substantial
number of estate planning matters and a substantial number of probate administration cases …
sell[s] the estate planning portion of the practice but remain[s] in the practice of law by
concentrating on probate administration” and clarifying “that practitioner may not thereafter
accept any estate planning matter.”) (emphasis added). However, the Selling Attorney’s entire
firm or area of practice must be sold and the Selling Attorney cannot choose to sell just those
parts of the practice that are less profitable or of less interest to Selling Attorney. See ABA
Comment 6 to Model Rule 1.17. This protects “those clients whose matters are less lucrative and
who might find it difficult to secure other counsel if a sale could be limited to substantial fee-
generating matters.” Id.
Finally, if only an area of practice is sold to the Successor Attorney, and the Selling Attorney
remains in practice, the Selling Attorney “must cease accepting any matters in the area of
practice that has been sold, either as counsel or co-counsel or by assuming joint responsibility for
a matter in connection with the division of a fee with another lawyer as would otherwise be
permitted by Rule 1.5(e).” ABA Comment 5 to Model Rule 1.17; See N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT
1.17(a).
We note that, contrary to the New Hampshire Rule, the ABA Comments to the Model Rules
allow some flexibility regarding the geographic area a Selling Attorney may practice in after the
sale of their practice or firm, as “some states are so large that a move from one locale therein to
another is tantamount to leaving the jurisdiction in which the lawyer has engaged in the practice
of law. To also accommodate lawyers so situated, states may permit the sale of the practice when
the lawyer leaves the geographical area rather than the jurisdiction.…” See ABA Comment 4 to
Model Rule 1.17; See also, e.g., N.C.R. PROF. CONDUCT. 1.17(a) (“The seller ceases to engage in
the private practice of law, or in the area of practice that has been sold, from an office that is
within a one-hundred (100) mile radius of the purchased law practice . . .”) (emphasis added).
Moreover, while N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(a) and the Ethics Committee Comments are silent
on the issue, the ABA Comments to the Model Rules would not prohibit the Selling Attorney
from practicing law in another capacity, or from participating in the legal field more generally.
See, e.g, ABA Comments 2, 3, and 5 to Model Rule 1.17 (permitting, for example, a selling
attorney who returns to private practice as a result of an unanticipated change in circumstances,
such as in the case of a lawyer who sold their practice to accept a judgeship, but then resigns
from their judicial position [Comment 2] or where the Selling Attorney is employed “as a lawyer

                                              2

on the staff of a public agency or legal services entity that provides legal services to the poor, or
as in-house counsel to a business” [Comment 3]).
(b) The Firm or Practice Area Must be Sold to One of More Attorneys or Law Firm(s)

The firm or area of practice must be sold to one or more attorneys or law firm(s). N.H. R. PROF.
CONDUCT 1.17(b). As such, the firm or practice cannot be sold to a non-lawyer (who would not
be subject to the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct). See N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(b); See
also Statement of Purpose, N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT (“The Rules of Professional Conduct
constitute the disciplinary standard for New Hampshire lawyers. Together with the law and other
regulations governing lawyers, the Rules establish boundaries of permissible and impermissible
lawyer conduct.”) (emphasis added); N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 5.3(c) and ABA Comment 2 to
Model Rule 5.3 (“[nonlawyers] do not have legal training and are not subject to professional
discipline”) (emphasis added).

However, as discussed in ABA Comment 13 to Model Rule 1.17, a non-lawyer representative
may represent a seller during the sale of a law practice of a deceased, incapacitated, or
disappeared lawyer, under those limited circumstances. See also N.H. Bar Association Ethics
Committee, Advisory Op. #2020-21/03, Dealing with a Deceased or Incapacitated Sole
Practitioner’s Practice (2020).

(c) The Selling Attorney Must Give Written Notice to Each Active and Inactive Client
    of the Practice or Practice Area Being Sold

The Selling Attorney must provide written notice to both active and inactive clients about the
practice area or firm being sold. See N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(c). The written notice must
include information about “(1) the proposed sale; (2) the client’s right to retain other counsel or
take possession of the file; and (3) the fact that the client’s consent to the transfer of the client’s
files will be presumed if the client does not take any action or does not otherwise object within
ninety (90) days of the receipt” of such written notice. N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(c)(1)-(3).
Client consent is required because without the client’s consent, the transfer of the client’s file to
the Successor Attorney would otherwise constitute an impermissible disclosure of confidential
information,. See ABA Comment 7 to Model Rule 1.17. However, after the ninety day period
“[i]f nothing is heard from the client within that time, consent to the sale is presumed” and
therefore, the client’s files can be transferred to the Successor Attorney. See id.
(d) The Fees Charged to Clients Cannot Be Increased Because of the Sale
The Successor Attorney cannot increase the fees charged to clients as a result of the sale. See
N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(d). As described in ABA Comment 10 to Model Rule 1.17, “[t]he
sale may not be financed by increases in fees charged [to] the clients of the practice [being
sold],” and “[e]xisting arrangements between the seller and the client as to the fees and the scope
of the work must be honored by the purchaser.” ABA Comment 10 to Model Rule 1.17.

                                                3

(e) If Notice Cannot be Given as Required, the Representation Must be Transferred to
the Successor Attorney
If a client cannot be provided the notice required by NH. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(c), NH. R.
PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(e) allows the representation of that client to be transferred to the Successor
Attorney in order to “protect[] the interests of that client[,] as and to[,] the same extent as the
selling lawyer was required to do so by these Rules.” NH. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(e).
Furthermore, the Successor Attorney “shall have a continuing obligation to reasonably attempt to
provide the client with such notice to the same extent as may be required by these Rules.” NH. R.
PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(e).
As the Ethics Committee Comments indicate, the New Hampshire Rule’s subsection (e) differs
from the ABA Model Rule because it “eliminat[es] the need for prior court authorization” for the
transfer of files of clients for whom consent could not be obtained, by requiring the Successor
Attorney take possession of said files as a result of the transfer of representation. Ethics
Committee Comment to Rule 1.17.
(f) The Successor Attorney Must Take Possession of All Inactive or Archival Files of the
Practice or Practice Area Being Sold, and Notice of Such Possession Provided to the
New Hampshire Bar Association and Published in an Appropriate Local Newspaper
The Rule requires that the Successor Attorney take possession of “all inactive or archival files of
the practice or practice area being sold, and shall store, handle, or destroy them in accordance
with the normal operating procedures of the successor lawyer or law firm and these Rules.” NH.
R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(f); See generally N.H. Bar Association Ethics Committee, Advisory Op.

2015-16/05, Client File Retention (2015) and the Rules cited within. In order to inform the

general public, including those inactive clients that could not be reached by the initial notice
described in NH. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(c), the Successor Attorney must publish notice of the
transfer of the inactive and archival files in “an appropriate newspaper of local circulation” and
must also notify the New Hampshire Bar Association of the transfer. See NH. R. PROF. CONDUCT
1.17(f); See also the New Hampshire Bar Association Guide to Succession Planning iii, at p. 22
(indicating that “the acquiring attorney must publish notice of the transfer in a newspaper and
give written notice of the arrangement to the New Hampshire Bar Association
([email protected]).”). It is clear “that the successor lawyer’s obligations with respect
to inactive or archival files of the prior lawyer mirror the duties owed to the successor’s own
clients and former clients.” Ethics Committee Comment to Rule 1.17.
Applying the Rule
Applying the Rule and the discussion above to scenario of a Partner selling their practice or
practice to an Associate, the Partner would be required to either cease to engage in the private
practice of law, or in the area of practice that was sold in New Hampshire. See N.H. R. PROF.
CONDUCT 1.17(a); But see also ABA Comment 2 to Model Rule 1.17 (“Return to private practice
as a result of an unanticipated change in circumstances does not necessarily result in a
violation”). By selling a practice, the Selling Attorney and the Associate would be required to

                                             4

meet the other conditions of Rule 1.17 set forth above. See also N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(a)-
(f).
Note that if a Partner sells only a particular practice area to an Associate, the Partner may be
able to continue to practice in other areas, but that Partner would need to be especially mindful of
their ethical obligations. In particular, the Partner “must cease accepting any matters in the area
of practice that has been sold, either as counsel or co-counsel or by assuming joint responsibility
for a matter in connection with the division of a fee with another lawyer as would otherwise be
permitted by Rule 1.5(e).” ABA Comment 5 to Model Rule 1.17.
However, whether a Partner may be permitted to continue in the private practice of law or a
specific area of practice, may depend on how the Partner transfers the area of practice or firm to
the Associate. The difference between a “sale” and a “transfer” must be considered. The Partner
should also consider a number of practical concerns: Is there another type of transition or
succession possible? For example, ABA Comment 14 explains that “retirement from a law
partnership or professional association” is not considered a sale and not subject to the Rule. ABA
Comment 14 also explains that there are other exceptions to the Rule, including “retirement
plans and similar arrangements, and the sale of tangible assets of a law practice.” Therefore, the
Partner in such a scenario may consider merging with the Associate instead of executing a sale.
Further, the Partner will need to be cognizant of how a transfer may impact the name of the firm.
As potential selling attorneys weigh these questions and the scope of a transfer or sale, they may
want to consider hiring ethics counsel and a corporate attorney experienced with mergers,
acquisitions, and the sale of business assets.
Finally, with respect to the costs of a sale, “[n]either the selling lawyer or law firm nor the
purchasing lawyer or law firm may bill clients for time spent only on the transition of matters.”
ABA Formal Opinion 468, “Facilitating the Sale of Law Practice,” October 8, 2014, at p. 1
(emphasis added). That is to say, whether the Selling Attorney is compensated for their time,
work, and energy to transition matters is to be decided “between the seller and buyer in
determining the consideration for the sale.” See id. at p. 5.
Other Considerations
As attorneys consider the potential sale, transfer, or succession of a firm or area of practice, it is
important that they keep the interests of the clients in mind, and remain aware of ethical
responsibilities.
As discussed in the ABA Comments to Model Rule 1.17, “[l]awyers participating in the sale of a
law practice or a practice area are subject to the ethical standards applicable to involving another
lawyer in the representation of a client.” ABA Comment 11 to Model Rule 1.17. These applicable
ethical standards encompass, among other responsibilities, “the seller’s obligation to exercise
competence in identifying a purchaser qualified to assume the practice and the purchaser’s
obligation to undertake the representation competently (see Rule 1.1); the obligation to avoid
disqualifying conflicts, and to secure the client’s informed consent for those conflicts that can be
agreed to (see Rule 1.7 regarding conflicts and Rule 1.0(e) for the definition of informed
consent); and the obligation to protect information relating to the representation (see Rules 1.6
and 1.9).” Id.

                                               5

Similarly, as a transfer or sale would result in the termination of an Attorney’s representation,
attorneys must be mindful of the requirements of N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.16, including the
proper procedure for terminating representation while the client is facing pending or active
litigation. The notice procedure is especially significant, as is an attorney’s responsibility to “take
steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests…” as explained in part (d)
of Rule 1.16. See N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.16(d).
It is also important to remember an attorney’s ethical duties with regard to safeguarding client
funds and property (See N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.15), including the duty to keep accurate and
thorough records for the Successor Attorney. On the topic of fees, as part of the sale, merger, or
transfer, a Selling Attorney must also be aware of their ethical duty not to share legal fees with
non-lawyers who may be part of their firm. See generally N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 5.4.
ENDNOTES

i
Both the Nebraska Supreme Court Lawyers Advisory Committee and the North Carolina State Bar
Council have addressed similar scenarios in regards to a Partner switching roles with an Associate. While
both apply their respective equivalents to Rule 1.17 in analyzing the issue, notably their Rules differ
materially from N.H.’s Rule 1.17. Each opinion is distinguishable from the conclusions reached in this
Corner, but these opinions may be beneficial to understanding N.H.’s Rule, our approach herein, and how
other states address the issue.
For instance, Nebraska’s equivalent to Rule 1.17 does not require the Selling Attorney to cease
engagement in the private practice of law or in the area of practice that is being sold within the state.
Compare NEB. CT. R. OF PROF. COND. 3-501.17 with N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(a) (“The seller ceases
to engage in the private practice of law, or in the area of practice that has been sold, within the State of
New Hampshire.”). Therefore, the Nebraska Supreme Court Lawyers’ Advisory Committee concluded
that the sale of a law practice to an existing Associate employee does not a constitute a “sale” for
purposes of Rule 1.17, because “when the assets of a firm are purchased by a professional association of
lawyers who are current employees of the firm, there is no potential harm to the interests of the clients of
the firm due to conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, or abuse of fee agreements.” Nebraska
Supreme Court Lawyers’ Advisory Comm., Op. 13-03, at 2998 (citing the North Carolina bar opinion
and, generally, ABA/BNA Lawyers Manual on Professional Conduct – Sale of Practice – Practice Guide);
See also LAW OF LAW FIRMS § 13:1 (2d) (2023) (“A lawyer transferring [their] practice to an associate is
not required to comply with the ethics rule governing sale of a law practice.”).
While North Carolina’s Rule requires a selling attorney to cease engagement in the private practice of the
law, or in the area of practice that has been sold, it has exceptions. One such exception is particularly
relevant to the scenario presented here: “the seller may continue to practice law with the purchaser and
may provide legal representation at no charge to indigent persons or to members of the seller’s family.”
Compare N.C.R. PROF. CONDUCT. 1.17(a) (emphasis added) with N.H. R. PROF. CONDUCT 1.17(a).
We provide this analysis to further distinguish the approach taken in this Opinion. We recommend
reviewing these opinions for further information.
The Nebraska opinion can be found through the following link:
https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/ethics-opinions/Lawyer/13-03_0.pdf.

                                                 6

The North Carolina opinion can be found through the following link: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-
lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/98-formal-ethics-opinion-6.
ii
Throughout this Opinion, the term “Selling Attorney” refers to the selling attorney, attorneys, or firm.
Similarly, the term “Successor Attorney” refers to the purchasing attorney, attorneys, or firm. These terms
are used to simplify the language, although it is important to note that some provisions of the Rule may
apply to a single individual, only.
iii
The New Hampshire Bar Association Guide to Succession Planning is a helpful resource available to
Members of the New Hampshire Bar Association and can be found through the following website:
https://www.nhbar.org/succession-planning-guide (you must be logged in to access the guide and link,
otherwise you will receive an error). Attorneys may consider reviewing the guide for additional
information to assist with the transition or closure of a firm or practice.

NH RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (in order of appearance):

Rule 1.17

Rule 1.5(e)

Rule 5.3(c)

Rule 1.1

Rule 1.7

Rule 1.0(e)

Rule 1.6

Rule 1.9

Rule 1.16

Rule 1.15

Rule 5.4

NH ETHICS COMMITTEE OPINIONS AND ARTICLES:
N.H. Bar Association Ethics Committee, Advisory Op. #2020-21/03, Dealing with a Deceased or
Incapacitated Sole Practitioner’s Practice (2020).

SUBJECTS:
Sale of Firm or Practice Area
Private Sector Attorneys
Retirement
Succession/Succession Planning
7
Closing a Firm or Practice Area

By the NHBA Ethics Committee
This opinion was submitted for publication to the NHBA Board of Governors at its Thursday,
January 18, 2024 meeting.