Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA

May a New York lawyer offer integrated legal, tax, and financial planning services through one practice?

Short answer The committee says the Rules allow one entity, but an integrated offering would very likely subject all three services to the Rules. It would require informed consent confirmed in writing to a personal-interest conflict, and that consent would not permit commissions or similar separate payments for financial planning advice.
Bar
NYSBA
Issued
September 17, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2026. Ask about yours and see what the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquirer is a New York lawyer and CPA who plans to add financial planning to a solo practice and offer clients an integrated legal, tax, and planning service. The committee assumes accounting and financial planning are nonlegal services for purposes of Rule 5.7 and focuses on whether they are distinct from the legal services provided to the same clients.

Under Rule 5.7, nonlegal services that are not distinct from legal services are governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee says the proposed integration makes distinctness unlikely. A written notice stating that nonlegal work lacks the protections of a lawyer-client relationship can address the presumption for distinct services under Rule 5.7(a)(2) or (a)(3); it does not remove the Rules from services that are actually integrated under Rule 5.7(a)(1). Conduct inconsistent with a notice can also defeat its effect.

The Rules do not require the legal and nonlegal services to be housed in separate entities. The committee does not recommend an organizational form and does not decide whether accounting or financial planning regulations permit the proposal. For the integrated offering described, the lawyer's financial interest in the additional services would likely create a personal-interest conflict requiring informed consent confirmed in writing. Some conflicts cannot be cured by consent: the committee says this lawyer could not also receive commissions or similar separate payments for financial planning advice.

In practice

For this proposed combined practice, the opinion's Rule 5.7 analysis turns on how closely the tax and planning work is integrated with the legal work. The committee treats a single entity as permissible under the Rules, while distinguishing that entity question from the conflict rules and from regulations outside its jurisdiction.

Common questions

Q: Would a written nonlegal-services notice keep the Rules from applying to integrated planning work?

A: No. The opinion says the Rule 5.7(a)(4) notice concerns distinct services under paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). It does not excuse compliance where the services are not distinct under paragraph (a)(1).

Q: Must the lawyer form a separate company for the tax and planning services?

A: The committee says no Rule requires a separate entity for nonlegal services. It declines to recommend whether the lawyer should use a particular entity structure.

Q: What consent does the opinion require for the proposed integrated offering?

A: The committee concludes that the lawyer's own financial interest would likely create a Rule 1.7(a)(2) conflict. The client would need to give informed consent confirmed in writing under Rule 1.7(b); the opinion also discusses Rule 1.8(a)'s requirements for nonlegal services in the same or substantially related matter.

Q: May the lawyer accept commissions for financial products recommended to legal clients if the clients consent?

A: No. The committee concludes that commissions or similar separate payments for financial planning advice would create a conflict that consent cannot cure in the proposed combined practice.

Q: Does the opinion determine attorney-client privilege or CPA and financial-planner regulatory requirements?

A: No. It confines its analysis to the Rules of Professional Conduct, identifies privilege as a question of law, and does not opine on other professional regulators' requirements.

Background and rules framework

Rule 5.7 governs a lawyer's nonlegal services and distinguishes services that are integrated with legal work from those that are distinct. The opinion applies Rules 1.7(a)(2), 1.7(b), and 1.8(a) to the lawyer's financial interest in providing both kinds of services. It also identifies Rules 1.5, 1.6, 5.4, 7.3, and 8.4(c) as applicable or potentially applicable provisions. The committee notes that the November 2025 amendments to Rules 1.7 and 1.8(a), and the June 2026 amendment to Rule 7.3, do not change its analysis.

Citations and references

New York Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rules 1.5, 1.6, 1.7(a)(2), 1.7(b), 1.8(a), 5.4, 5.7, 7.3, and 8.4(c)

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 1135 (2017) (lawyer and CPA services)
  • N.Y. State 1155 (2018) (lawyer and financial planner)
  • N.Y. State 1200 (2020) (lawyer and wealth management provider)
  • N.Y. State 896 (2011) (lawyer and lien search services)

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2026. Ezel checks the current New York 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