Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA 2012-09-07

Can a New York lawyer run a law practice and a real estate brokerage from the same office and market them together?

Short answer: Yes; the lawyer may operate both from one office and send joint mailings as long as the marketing is truthful and not misleading, but may not serve as both lawyer and broker in the same real estate transaction, a conflict the opinion treats as non-consentable.
Currency note: this opinion is from 2012
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 Not binding precedent.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 at the bottom of this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 933: Running a law office and a real estate brokerage together

Short answer: A lawyer may conduct a law practice and a real estate brokerage business from the same office and may advertise or send joint mailings for both, provided the marketing is neither false nor misleading; the lawyer may not act as both the lawyer for a party and the broker in the same real estate transaction.

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.

About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.

View original opinion

Plain-English summary

A solo lawyer practicing from his residence also ran a real estate brokerage there as a single-member LLC, and asked whether he could keep both businesses in one office and send a single mailing (greeting cards, business cards, refrigerator magnets) to a combined list of law clients, brokerage clients, and other contacts. The opinion answers both questions yes, subject to cautions.

On the shared office, the opinion traces its position to N.Y. State 493 (1978), which, after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, concluded that a lawyer may run a law practice and a real estate brokerage from the same office. The older opinions barring that arrangement had rested on then-existing limits on lawyer advertising, and Bates removed that footing; the committee overruled the contrary opinions. Rule 5.7, which governs a lawyer's provision of non-legal services, does not change the conclusion.

On the joint mailing, the opinion sees no objection to a single envelope carrying a card or token identifying the sender as both a lawyer and a licensed real estate broker, provided the information is truthful and not deceptive or misleading under Rule 7.1.

The opinion then sets out three cautions. First, while the two businesses may share premises, the lawyer may not serve as both lawyer for a party to a real estate transaction and broker in that same transaction; the committee has held repeatedly (citing N.Y. State 919 (2012) and N.Y. State 752 (2002)) that the lawyer-broker's interest in the brokerage fee conflicts with the duty of independent legal judgment under Rule 1.7(a) so severely that the conflict is non-consentable. Second, Rule 5.7 applies to the brokerage services: if they are not distinct from legal services to the same client or could be perceived as part of a lawyer-client relationship, they are subject to the Rules, and a client is presumed to believe a lawyer-client relationship exists unless the lawyer has stated in writing that the services are not legal services. Third, Rule 5.7(b) bars any non-lawyer associated in the brokerage from directing the lawyer's professional judgment or causing the lawyer to compromise confidentiality duties under Rule 1.6(a) and (c).

In practice

Under this opinion, and under the New York rules as they stood at the time, a lawyer may keep a law office and a real estate brokerage under one roof and market them jointly as long as the communications are accurate. The line the opinion draws is at the single transaction: the lawyer-broker may not occupy both roles in the same deal, because the opinion treats the brokerage-fee interest as a non-consentable conflict with independent legal judgment. The opinion also makes clear that brokerage services not kept distinct from the lawyer's legal work, or not disclaimed in writing, fall under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Common questions

Q: Can a New York lawyer keep a law office and a real estate brokerage in the same space?

A: Yes. The opinion follows N.Y. State 493, decided after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, in concluding that a lawyer may run a law practice and a real estate brokerage from the same office.

Q: Can the lawyer be both the lawyer and the broker in the same real estate deal?

A: No. The opinion holds that the lawyer-broker's interest in the brokerage fee conflicts with the duty of independent legal judgment under Rule 1.7(a) so severely that the conflict is non-consentable, citing N.Y. State 919 and N.Y. State 752.

Q: Can the lawyer send a joint mailing advertising both businesses?

A: Yes, if it is truthful and not misleading under Rule 7.1. The opinion approves a single mailing identifying the sender as both a lawyer and a licensed real estate broker.

Q: Do the Rules of Professional Conduct reach the brokerage work?

A: They can. Under Rule 5.7, brokerage services that are not distinct from the lawyer's legal services, or that the client could perceive as part of a lawyer-client relationship, are subject to the Rules unless the lawyer has stated in writing that they are not legal services.

Background and rules framework

The opinion turns on Rule 5.7 (Model Rule 5.7), governing law-related and non-legal services, and Rule 1.7(a) (Model Rule 1.7) on personal-interest conflicts. Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1) supplies the truthful-and-not-misleading standard for the joint marketing, and Rule 1.6(a) and (c) (Model Rule 1.6) the confidentiality duties that a non-lawyer associate may not cause the lawyer to compromise. The advertising analysis rests on Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, the decision that extended First Amendment protection to lawyer advertising and prompted the committee's earlier shift in N.Y. State 493.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 5.7 / NY 5.7 (non-legal services)
  • MR 1.7 / NY 1.7(a) (personal-interest conflict)
  • MR 7.1 / NY 7.1 (truthful, non-misleading communications)
  • MR 1.6 / NY 1.6(a), 1.6(c) (confidentiality)
  • NY 5.8 (non-legal professional relationships)

Cases:

  • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), First Amendment protection for lawyer advertising
  • Ibanez v. Florida Dep't of Business and Professional Regulation, 512 U.S. 136 (1994), commercial-speech limits on professional advertising restrictions

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 493 (1978): lawyer may run a law practice and a brokerage from the same office
  • N.Y. State 919 (2012) and N.Y. State 752 (2002): lawyer may not act as lawyer and broker in the same transaction (non-consentable)
  • N.Y. State 487 (1978): truthful identification in combined communications

See also

Source