NVBAR June 16, 1987

Can a lawyer cut his fee in half if the client donates the savings to the lawyer's church?

Short answer: No. The Committee concluded that offering to waive half a fee on the condition the client donates the savings to a church is impermissible fee-splitting with a nonlawyer under SCR 188, even though the client makes the donation directly, and it also raises misleading-discount, conflict, and improper-solicitation concerns.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1987
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
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 as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who was a church member proposed to mail church members and sponsors a letter offering to waive one-half of his normal fee for preparing wills and trusts if the client agreed to donate the saved half to the church, as part of the church's fund-raising. The Committee answered that he may not.

The opinion held that the proposal directly violates SCR 188(1), which provides that a lawyer or firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer. The Committee reasoned that an arrangement under which an attorney performs services for an organization's members on the understanding that all or part of the earned fee will be contributed to the organization, whether paid by the client directly or by the attorney after receipt, constitutes fee-splitting with a nonlawyer in violation of SCR 188, citing sister-state opinions reaching the same result even where the client makes the contribution.

Although SCR 188 disposed of the inquiry, the opinion noted three additional problems. First, while SCR 196 and 197 permit advertising and certain solicitation, both are subject to SCR 195's bar on false or misleading communications; advertising a discount from a "normal fee" for wills and trusts is problematic because the range of such fees is enormous and there may be no objectively ascertainable "customary fee." Second, if a participating client wished to name the church as a beneficiary, conflict-of-interest and independent-judgment concerns under SCR 157 and SCR 167 would arise. Third, if the church solicited its members to participate, that activity could be unlawful under NRS 7.045 (barring nonlawyers from soliciting legal fees on behalf of lawyers).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before Nevada's 2006 adoption of the current Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (the renumbered Rules 1.0 et seq. that replaced the former Supreme Court Rules) and the related Ethics 2000-based revisions. The duties discussed are now in Rule 5.4 (sharing fees with a nonlawyer), Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications), and Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest). 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is it fee-splitting if the client, not the lawyer, donates the savings to the church?

A: Per the opinion, yes. The Committee concluded that an understanding that the earned fee will be contributed to the organization is fee-splitting with a nonlawyer under SCR 188 whether the client donates directly or the lawyer remits after receipt.

Q: What is wrong with advertising a discount from the lawyer's "normal fee"?

A: The opinion warned that, under SCR 195, a discount offer can be misleading where there is no objectively ascertainable "customary fee"; wills and trusts range widely in price, so the "normal fee" baseline is unreliable.

Q: What conflict arises if a client names the church as a beneficiary?

A: The opinion noted that SCR 157 (conflict of interest) and SCR 167 (independent professional judgment) concerns arise if a participating client wants to name the lawyer's church as a devisee, legatee, or trust beneficiary.

Background and rules framework

The opinion's holding rests on SCR 188 (now Rule 5.4, sharing fees with a nonlawyer). It also flags SCR 195 (now Rule 7.1, false or misleading communications) with SCR 196 and 197 on advertising and solicitation, and SCR 157 and SCR 167 (now reflected in Rules 1.7 and the independence requirements) on conflicts and independent judgment, plus NRS 7.045 on nonlawyer solicitation of fees.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Model Rule 5.4 / former Nev. SCR 188 (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer)
  • Model Rule 7.1 / former Nev. SCR 195 (false or misleading communications; SCR 196, 197 on advertising and solicitation)
  • Model Rule 1.7 / former Nev. SCR 157 (conflict of interest); former Nev. SCR 167 (independent professional judgment)

Statutes:

  • NRS 7.045 (1985) (unlawful for nonlawyers to solicit legal fees on behalf of lawyers)

Other opinions cited:

  • Arizona Op. 79-15; Iowa Op. 84-7 (charitable fee-contribution plans as nonlawyer fee-splitting); New York State Op. 563 (discounted-fee disclosure)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1987 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.