Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA October 5, 1978

Can a New York lawyer run a real estate brokerage out of the same office as the law practice?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that, after Bates, a lawyer may run a law practice and a real estate brokerage from the same office, but may not solicit legal work in violation of law and may not act as lawyer for a party in a transaction where the lawyer or spouse was the broker.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1978. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1978
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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer could run a real estate brokerage business from the same office as the law practice. It answered yes, with qualifications.

Before Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, the committee had uniformly held that a lawyer could not share an office with a real estate brokerage run by the lawyer or the lawyer's spouse (N.Y. State 26, 114, 135, 206, 244). Those holdings rested on the view that lawyer advertising was unethical, the same view that produced former DR 2-102(E), which barred a lawyer from indicating dual practice on letterhead, signs, or cards. Bates swept away many of those advertising prohibitions and led to material revisions of Canon 2, including the repeal of DR 2-102(E) (see N.Y. State 487 (1978)). The committee concluded it no longer perceived any reason to forbid sharing an office, and overruled the contrary earlier opinions to that extent.

The opinion attached two safeguards. First, a lawyer remains barred from soliciting employment in violation of any statute or court rule (DR 2-103(A)), and a lawyer who gave unsolicited advice to obtain counsel or take legal action cannot accept resulting employment in violation of law; the committee pointed lawyers to Judiciary Law section 479 on solicitation without itself ruling on that question of law. Second, the committee reaffirmed its longstanding position (N.Y. State 208, 244, 291, 340) that a lawyer may not act as lawyer for any party to a real estate transaction in which the lawyer or the lawyer's spouse acted as broker, because of the possible conflict between the client's interests and the lawyer's own. Subject to those qualifications, the question was answered in the affirmative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1978, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (law-related services are now addressed by Rule 5.7, solicitation by Rule 7.3, and concurrent conflicts by Rule 1.7). It rests directly on the post-Bates revisions to Canon 2. 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: Can a New York lawyer share office space with a real estate brokerage?

A: Under this opinion, yes. After Bates the committee overruled its earlier contrary opinions and allowed a lawyer to run a law practice and a brokerage from the same office.

Q: Can the lawyer act as both the lawyer and the broker in the same deal?

A: No. The committee reaffirmed that a lawyer may not represent a party to a transaction in which the lawyer or the lawyer's spouse acted as broker, because of the conflict between the client's interests and the lawyer's own.

Q: Does sharing an office change the rules on soliciting clients?

A: No. The opinion stressed that the lawyer still may not solicit legal employment in violation of any statute or court rule, and pointed to Judiciary Law section 479 without deciding that legal question.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-101, DR 2-102 (including repealed DR 2-102(E)), and DR 2-103 (solicitation), in light of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. The closest current Model Rule analogues are Rule 5.7 (responsibilities regarding law-related services), Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients), and Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 5.7 (responsibilities regarding law-related services)
  • MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
  • MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients)
  • NY DR 2-101, DR 2-102, DR 2-103

Statutes:

  • N.Y. Judiciary Law section 479 (solicitation of legal business), cited by the opinion as a matter of law for the lawyer to consider

Cases:

  • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), striking categorical bans on lawyer advertising

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 487 (1978): post-Bates revisions to Canon 2 advertising rules
  • N.Y. State 26, 114, 135, 206, 244: overruled in part
  • N.Y. State 208, 291, 340: lawyer may not act for a party where lawyer or spouse was broker

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1978 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.