After New York adopted DR 1-106 on non-legal services, can a lawyer who owns an ancillary business provide both legal and non-legal services in the same transaction with the client's consent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2002. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
On July 23, 2001, the Appellate Divisions adopted new multidisciplinary-practice rules effective November 1, 2001, including DR 1-106, which addresses a lawyer's or firm's responsibilities when providing non-legal services. The rule provides that the Disciplinary Rules presumptively do not apply to a lawyer's distinct non-legal services if the client is told in writing that those services are not legal services and that the attorney-client relationship's protections do not apply (DR 1-106(A)(3)-(4)). The committee was asked how its earlier opinions, which barred a lawyer who also runs certain ancillary businesses from providing legal and non-legal services in the same transaction even with consent, fared after the new rule.
The committee surveyed the prior line: a lawyer could not act as lawyer and real estate broker in the same transaction (N.Y. State 208, 291, 340, 493), and similar conclusions reached insurance and securities brokers (N.Y. State 536, 619) and title abstract examiners doing non-ministerial work (N.Y. State 595, 621, 738). The rationale was that the broker's interest in closing the transaction interferes with the lawyer's ability to give independent advice, a conclusion grounded in DR 5-101(A), which bars employment when the lawyer's professional judgment for a client may be affected by the lawyer's own financial, business, property, or personal interests unless a disinterested lawyer would find the representation unaffected and the client consents after full disclosure.
The committee held those bars survive DR 1-106. Citing EC 1-12, it explained that complying with DR 1-106(A)(4) does not mean no rules apply to the relationship; DR 1-106 only relieves the lawyer of the Disciplinary Rules as applied to the non-legal services. The dual-role prohibitions came from applying DR 5-101(A) to the legal services: it was the effect of the lawyer's financial stake on the exercise of independent legal judgment that mattered, just as a personal conflict can arise from interests wholly unrelated to any business service to the client. Because DR 1-106 does not change how DR 5-101(A) governs the legal side of the representation, the personal-interest conflict, and the bars built on it, remain.
In practice
The opinion holds that, under the New York Code as it stood in 2002, giving the DR 1-106(A)(4) written notice does not free a lawyer who owns an ancillary business to take on both the legal and non-legal roles in a single transaction where DR 5-101(A) would otherwise bar it. The conflict is measured by the effect of the lawyer's business interest on the lawyer's independent legal judgment, and where that effect is present the dual role is barred even with consent.
The companion opinions issued the same week apply this conclusion to specific dual roles: N.Y. State 753 works through the mortgage-broker and title-abstract permutations, and N.Y. State 755 addresses referrals between the lawyer and the lawyer's own non-legal business.
Common questions
Q: Did DR 1-106 make it easier for a lawyer-owned business to serve a client the lawyer also represents?
A: Not for the legal side. The opinion concludes DR 1-106 exempts only the non-legal services from the Disciplinary Rules; the conflict bars come from applying DR 5-101(A) to the legal services and are unaffected.
Q: Can client consent cure the dual-role conflict?
A: Not where DR 5-101(A) bars the role. The opinion reaffirms that in the broker and similar situations the lawyer's stake in closing the deal affects independent legal judgment, and consent does not cure that conflict.
Q: Why does the non-legal-services notice not solve the problem?
A: The opinion explains, citing EC 1-12, that the DR 1-106 notice removes the Disciplinary Rules only from the non-legal services; it does not switch off DR 5-101(A)'s analysis of the lawyer's legal representation.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-106 (non-legal services and the client-notice procedure), DR 5-101(A) (personal-interest conflicts in accepting or continuing employment), DR 1-107 (contractual relationships with non-legal professionals), and EC 1-12. The Model Rule analogues are Rule 5.7 (law-related services) and Rule 1.7(a)(2) (personal-interest conflicts). New York replaced this Code with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009; the DR and EC numbers cited here are historical.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 5.7 (law-related services); MR 1.7(a)(2) (personal-interest conflicts)
- NY DR 1-106, DR 1-107, DR 5-101(A), EC 1-12
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 208 (1971): a lawyer may not act as lawyer and real estate broker in the same transaction
- N.Y. State 711 (1998): conflict turns on whether the lawyer's judgment will be adversely affected by the business interest
- N.Y. State 738 (2001): bar on the lawyer-owned abstract company performing non-ministerial title work
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 753: Lawyer-owned mortgage and title company in one deal
- NY State Bar Op. 755: Lawyer-owned ancillary business and cross-referrals
- NY State Bar Op. 832: Selling shelf corporations as a non-legal service
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-752/
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2002 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.