Can a law firm share a building, entrance, signage, and staff with a related real estate and insurance business?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1968. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An associate in a law firm asked about an office arrangement. The firm practiced in a one-story building in which the brother of one of the firm's members ran a real estate and insurance business. The law offices adjoined a large secretarial area where the legal secretaries and typist worked on both the firm's legal matters and the insurance and real estate business. The front of the building bore separate signs for the law office and separate signs for "Realtors, Insurers" and "Agency Insurance," the agency name being identical to the last name of one of the firm's members, and there was a common entrance shared by all the operations.
The Committee acknowledged that the lawyers did not appear to be participating in the real estate and insurance business beyond the use of common facilities and shared office personnel. Even so, it held there could be little doubt that the arrangement would create, in the minds of all visitors, the impression that the attorneys had an interest in the real estate and insurance business. Because any advertising or other promotional activity by that business would inevitably benefit the law practice, the Committee concluded the association was improper.
The Committee restated the principle that a lawyer may engage in business while practicing law, but the business must be independent, separate, and distinct, and must not be one that would be regarded as a feeder for the law practice, citing its Opinion 23 (an attorney may also practice accounting, but not from the same office and without announcing it on the law office's windows or stationery).
Currency note
This opinion was issued in June 1968, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It was later overruled by the Committee's Opinion 498 (1982), which permitted a lawyer to share office space with a non-lawyer mortgage company or insurance professional where the identities of the businesses are kept separate and client confidences are protected. The subjects it addresses are now treated under RPC 5.7 (law-related services) and RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterhead). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Is it improper just to share an office building and staff with a realty or insurance business?
A: Under this opinion, yes; the Committee held the shared building, entrance, signage, and staff created the impression of an attorney interest in the business and let its promotion benefit the law practice. Opinion 498 later took a more permissive view.
Q: Can a lawyer be in a side business at all?
A: The Committee said a lawyer may engage in a separate business, but it must be independent and distinct and not serve as a "feeder" for the law practice; it should not operate from the same office or be advertised on the law office's signage or stationery.
Background and rules framework
The opinion rests on the Canons-era concern that a lawyer's outside business must not become a feeder for the law practice or create the impression of an improper association, drawing on Opinion 23. In current New Jersey terms, the questions of a lawyer's law-related or ancillary business and of names and signage that imply an association are treated under RPC 5.7 and RPC 7.5. Note that the specific holding here was overruled by Opinion 498.
Citations and references
Other opinions cited:
- NJ ACPE Opinion 23, 87 N.J.L.J. 19 (1964): a lawyer may also practice accounting, but not from the same office and without announcing it on the law office's windows or stationery
- NJ ACPE Opinion 498 (1982): later overruled this opinion, permitting separated office-sharing with a non-lawyer business
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp129-1.html
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1968 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.