Can an Ohio lawyer offer financial planning services through the law firm to estate and business clients, and charge a percentage of assets managed?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Currency note
The Board withdrew this opinion on August 7, 2020 in Advisory Opinion 2020-08. Because it has been withdrawn, it is not current guidance; it is indexed here as historical research only.
This opinion also issued in 2000, before Ohio's adoption of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (effective February 1, 2007). The DR 2-106 provision and the law-related-services analysis discussed here are now addressed by Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 1.5 and 5.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules and Opinion 2020-08 before relying on anything here.
Plain-English summary
The Board addressed whether an attorney may provide financial planning services through the law firm to the firm's business and estate planning clients, and whether the attorney may charge a fee for those services based on a percentage of the assets managed. The Board concluded the Code did not prohibit providing financial planning services through the firm when the services were law-related and provided in connection with and related to the provision of legal services. It emphasized that an attorney who provides law-related services in that posture remains subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility and must heed the applicable state and federal laws governing the law-related service.
On the fee question, the Board advised that an attorney providing such services should not charge a fee based on the total value of a fund averaged over a period, or measured as of definite dates. The Board's stated concern was that such compensation could open the attorney and the attorney's records to state regulation and inspection under the Ohio Securities Act. The Board instead suggested a fixed fee, flat or hourly, provided the fee is not excessive under DR 2-106(A) and (B).
Common questions
Q: Under this opinion, could an Ohio lawyer offer financial planning through the firm to estate planning clients?
A: Yes, where the services were law-related and provided in connection with and related to legal services. The opinion concluded the former Code did not prohibit it, but the attorney remained subject to the Code and to applicable financial-services laws.
Q: Could the lawyer charge a percentage of the assets managed for the financial planning work?
A: The opinion advised against it. The Board recommended a fixed flat or hourly fee, not excessive under DR 2-106, and warned that a percentage-of-assets fee could trigger regulation under the Ohio Securities Act.
Q: Is this opinion still in effect?
A: No. The Board withdrew it on August 7, 2020 in Opinion 2020-08, and it predates Ohio's 2007 Rules of Professional Conduct.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility's treatment of law-related services and fees, including DR 2-106(A) and (B) (fees that must not be excessive). The Board's framework, that a lawyer offering law-related services connected to legal services remains subject to the professional rules, is now reflected in Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 5.7 (law-related services) and the fee rule in Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 1.5 (Model Rules 5.7 and 1.5).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106(A), DR 2-106(B)
Statutes:
- Ohio Securities Act (referenced as a source of potential state regulation and record inspection)
See also
- Ohio BPC Op. 2001-004: Lawyer Selling Annuities to Estate Planning Clients
- Ohio BPC Op. 2000-001: Accepting a Referral Fee From a Financial Services Group
- Ohio BPC Op. 2000-005: Paying an Online Lawyer Referral Service
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-00-004-1.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 2000-4
Issued December 1, 2000
Withdrawn by Adv. Op. 2020-08
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded
by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
SYLLABUS: The Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility does not prohibit an
attorney from providing financial planning services through the law firm to business and
estate planning clients of the law firm when the law-related services are provided in
connection with and are related to the provision of legal services. An attorney who
provides law-related services in connection with and related to the provision of legal
services is subject to the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility. Attorneys who
provide law-related services must heed applicable state and federal laws governing the
law-related service.
The Board recommends that an attorney who provides financial services through a law
firm in connection with and related to the provision of legal services should not charge a
fee based upon the total value of a fund averaged over a definite period, or as of definite
dates, or taken as of a definite date. Such compensation may possibly open the attorney
and the attorney’s records to state regulation and inspection under the Ohio Securities
Act. The Board instead suggests the use of a fixed fee, flat or hourly, provided that the
fee is not excessive under DR 2-106(A) and (B).
OPINION: This opinion addresses questions regarding an attorney providing both legal
services and financial planning services to clients of a law firm.
1. Is it proper for an attorney to provide financial planning services
through the attorney’s law firm to business and estate planning clients of
the attorney’s law firm?
2. Is it proper for an attorney to charge a fee to a legal client for financial
planning services, basing the fee on a percentage of the assets managed for
the client?
Question One
Is it proper for an attorney to provide financial planning services through
the attorney’s law firm to business and estate planning clients of the
attorney’s law firm?
Opinion 2000-4 2
An attorney proposes providing financial planning services to business and estate
planning clients of the attorney’s law firm. The financial planning services would
include advising as to risk management; investment management, including asset
allocation and selection; retirement planning; estate planning, and personal financial
statements. The financial planning services would not include the sale of products or
securities.
The Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility does not prohibit attorneys from providing
law-related services. In fact, the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility contains no
direct reference to the provision of law-related services, other than to broadly
acknowledge in an advertising rule, DR 2-102(E), that an attorney who engages in both
the practice of law and another profession or business is subject to certain advertising
restrictions. [DR 2-102(E) “A lawyer who is engaged both in the practice of law and
another profession or business shall not so indicate on the lawyer’s letterhead, office sign,
or professional card, nor shall the lawyer identify himself or herself as a lawyer in any
publication in connection with his or her other profession or business.”]
Unlike the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, the ABA Model Rules of
Professional Conduct address law-related services.
Rule 5.7 Responsibilities Regarding Law–Related Services
(a) A lawyer shall be subject to the Rules of Professional conduct with
respect to the provision of law-related services, as defined in
paragraph (b), if the law-related services are provided:
(1) by the lawyer in circumstances that are not distinct from the
lawyer’s provision of legal services to clients; or
(2) by a separate entity controlled by the lawyer individually or with
others if the lawyer fails to take reasonable measures to assure that
a person obtaining the law-related services knows that the services
of the separate entity are not legal services and that the protections
of the client-lawyer relationship do not exist.
(b) The term “law-related services” denotes services that might reasonably
be performed in conjunction with and in substance are related to the
provision of legal services, and that are not prohibited as unauthorized
practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer.
Although Model Rule 5.7 does not govern Ohio attorneys, the ABA rule provides
guidance. See e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball, 67 Ohio St. 3d 401, 404 (1993)
(discussing ABA Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3). ABA Model Rule 5.7(a) acknowledges that
lawyers may provide law-related services either in circumstances that are not distinct
from the lawyer’s provision of legal services to clients or through a separate entity. The
rule identifies law-related services as services that might reasonably be performed in
conjunction with and in substance are related to the provision of legal services. The rule
requires that lawyers who provide law-related services must comply with professional
rules of conduct. This Board agrees.
Opinion 2000-4 3
In Opinion 94-7, this Board addressed the provision of law-related services through a
separate entity. The Board advised that “[a]n attorney or several attorneys within a law
firm may own an ancillary business that provides law-related services, for example, a
Workers’ Compensation Service Company that provides claims administration services
for employers. Attorneys who operate such law-related businesses must do so in a
manner consistent with the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility. The ancillary
business must not engage in activities that would be prohibited as unauthorized practice
of law.” Ohio Sup Ct, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances & Discipline, Op. 94-7 (1994).
Consistent with Opinion 94-7, it is this Board’s view that in the absence of a prohibitive
rule, Ohio attorneys may, as they have by tradition and perhaps by unspoken rule,
provide law-related services as part of the practice of law to legal clients of the law firm.
The provision of law-related services through a law firm must comport with professional
rules of conduct and to any applicable laws governing the law-related service.
Before providing financial planning services, Ohio attorneys should be fully aware of
state and federal laws regulating investment advisory services. The Ohio Department of
Commerce, Division of Securities administers the law regulating investment advisers in
Ohio and is available as a resource on investment adviser issues. For a discussion of
Ohio law (Chapter 1707 of the Ohio Revised Code) and for references to applicable
federal law see Thomas E. Geyer, An Overview of Amended Substitute House Bill 695’S
Amendments to the Ohio Securities Act and a Guide to Ohio’s New Investment Adviser
Provisions, 28 Cap. U. L. Rev. 359 (2000).
This Board has no advisory authority as to state and federal law. Nevertheless, the Board
notes that attorneys who provide investment advisory services for compensation are
subject to the licensing and other regulations of Ohio law, unless the investment advisory
services are provided by the attorney “solely incidental” to the practice of the attorney’s
profession. Under R.C. 1707.01(X)(2), when investment advisory services are provided
by an attorney “solely incidental” to the practice of the attorney’s profession, the attorney
is not considered an “investment adviser” under R.C. 1707.01(X)(1).
R.C. 1707.01(X)(1) “Investment adviser” means any person who, for
compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or
through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the
advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for
compensation and as a part of regular business, issues or promulgates
analyses or reports concerning securities.
R.C. 1707.01(X)(2) “Investment adviser” does not mean any of the
following:
(a) Any attorney . . . whose performance of investment advisory
services described in division (X)(1) of this section is solely
incidental to the practice of the attorney’s . . . profession.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1707.01 (X)(1), (2) (West Supp. 2000).
Opinion 2000-4 4
Thus, if an attorney’s financial advice to clients is beyond “solely incidental,” the
attorney may meet the definition of investment adviser in R.C. 1707.01(X)(1) and be
subject to regulation under the Ohio Securities Act set forth Chapter 1707 of the Ohio
Revised Code.
What is considered “solely incidental” is not within this Board’s authority to determine.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has stated:
The performance by a lawyer of investment advisory services would be
solely incidental to his [her] law practice where the following three
conditions are met: (i) the lawyer does not hold himself [herself] out to
the public as providing investment advisory services; (ii) the lawyer
renders such services only in connection with the fulfillment of his (her)
contract for legal services; (iii) the charge for such services is based on the
same factors as determine the lawyer’s usual charges. See Thrailkill &
Goodman, P.C. (pub. avail. July 16, 1982), and LaManna & Hohman
(pub. avail. March 18, 1983) (accountant exception).
Milton O. Brown, P.C. No-Action Letter, [1983-1984 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
(CCH) ¶77,545 (Aug. 29, 1983).
For discussion of the Ohio Securities Act see Thomas E. Geyer, An Overview of Amended
Substitute House Bill 695’S Amendments to the Ohio Securities Act and a Guide to
Ohio’s New Investment Adviser Provisions, 28 Cap. U. L. Rev. 359, 367 (2000). The
“solely incidental” exclusion is mentioned at page 376 of the Geyer article.
As to applicable disciplinary rules in the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, the
Board offers the following guidelines. Preservation of client confidences and secrets
must be maintained under DR 4-101. An attorney should consider whether provision of a
law-related service subjects the attorney’s records to inspection by regulatory agencies
outside the legal profession. For example, if an attorney falls within the definition of
investment adviser, but does not meet the “solely incidental” exclusion provided by law,
the attorney will be subject to the law and to its regulatory powers that includes state
inspection of records. It is the Board’s view that an attorney should not jeopardize the
confidences and secrets of clients of his law practice in this manner. Thus, an attorney
who wants to provide financial services through a law firm should do so only when the
services are provided “solely incidental” to the practice of law.
An attorney should abide by DR 5-101 regarding conflicts of interest. In particular, DR
5-101(A)(1) requires that “[e]xcept with the consent of the client after full disclosure, a
lawyer shall not accept employment if the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of
the client will be or reasonably may be affected by the lawyer’s financial, business,
property, or personal interests. Thus, to avoid a conflict of interest under DR 5-
101(A)(1) a lawyer should inform a legal client who needs related financial services that
the client may obtain financial services elsewhere. The lawyer should inform a client of
the fee, if any, for providing the law-related services.
An attorney should abide by the publicity and other related rules under DR-2-101 to 2-
105. As an example, to avoid a violation of DR 2-102(E), the lawyer should not
Opinion 2000-4 5
advertise the financial planning services on the letterhead, office sign, or letterhead of the
law practice.
An attorney should not charge an illegal or excessive fee under DR 2-106. The fee
should be reasonable. A lawyer’s fee for providing financial planning services in
conjunction with legal services is addressed further in Question Two.
In conclusion, the Board advises that the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility does
not prohibit an attorney from providing financial planning services through the law firm
to business and estate planning clients of the law firm when the law-related services are
provided in connection with and are related to the provision of legal services. An
attorney who provides law-related services in connection with and related to the
provision of legal services is subject to the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility.
Attorneys who provide law-related services must heed applicable state and federal laws
governing the law-related service.
Question Two
Is it proper for an attorney to charge a legal client a fee for financial
planning services, basing the fee on a percentage of the assets managed for
the client?
The Board first considers several methods of compensation. Under the Ohio
Administrative Code, an investment adviser, who is licensed or who should be licensed,
is prohibited from charging a fee based upon performance. The Ohio Administrative
Code prohibits a person who is an investment adviser licensed or required to be licensed
from entering a contract that “[p]rovides for compensation to the investment adviser on
the basis of a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any
portion of the funds of the client.” Ohio Admin. Code § 1301:6-3-151(I)(1)(a)(i) (2000)
The Securities and Exchange Commission has also stated that a contingent fee based on
performance of assets for providing financial services to legal clients is deemed an illegal
fee. See Milton O. Brown, P.C. No-Action Letter, [1983-1984 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec.
L. Rep. (CCH) ¶77,545 (Aug. 29, 1983). See also, Thomas E. Geyer, An Overview of
Amended Substitute House Bill 695’S Amendments to the Ohio Securities Act and a
Guide to Ohio’s New Investment Adviser Provisions, 28 Cap. U. L. Rev. 359, 396-98
(2000).
An investment adviser is permitted to charge a fee based upon the total value of a fund
averaged over a definite period, or as of definite dates, or taken as of a definite date. The
Ohio Administrative Code states that “[p]aragraph (I)(1)(a)(i) of this rule shall not: Be
construed to prohibit an investment advisory contract which provides compensation
based upon the total value of a fund averaged over a definite period, or as of definite
dates, or taken as of a definite date.” Ohio Admin. Code § 1301:6-3-151(I)(1)(b)(i)
(2000).
However, even though it is legally proper for investment advisers to be compensated in
this manner, this Board’s view is that an attorney who provides financial services through
a law firm should not charge a fee in which the compensation is based upon the total
Opinion 2000-4 6
value of a fund averaged over a definite period, or as of definite dates, or taken as of a
definite date. Such compensation may possibly open the attorney and the attorney’s
records to state regulation and inspection under the Ohio Securities Act.
One of the factors used by regulatory agencies to determine whether an attorney meets
the “solely incidental” exception under R.C. 1707.01(X)(2) and falls outside the
regulatory requirements of the law is whether the fee charged for advisory services is
based on the same factors as those used to determine the fee for professional services. See
e.g., Milton O. Brown, P.C. No-Action Letter, [1983-1984 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L.
Rep. (CCH) ¶77,545 (Aug. 29, 1983). See also, Thomas E. Geyer, An Overview of
Amended Substitute House Bill 695’S Amendments to the Ohio Securities Act and a
Guide to Ohio’s New Investment Adviser Provisions, 28 Cap. U. L. Rev. 359, 367 (2000).
Whether a fee based upon the total value of a fund averaged over a definite period, or as
of definite dates, or taken as of a definite date, would be viewed as based on the same
factors as those used to determine a fee for the attorney’s professional services is not a
question this Board has authority to answer.
Until there is legal authority that clarifies this issue, the Board does not recommend this
method of compensation for attorneys who provide law-related services through the law
firm. The Board instead suggests the use of a fixed fee, flat or hourly. Fixed fees are
expressly referred to in DR 2-106(B)(8) of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility.
A fixed fee, flat or hourly, is a typical type of fee for legal services. A fixed fee must not
be excessive under DR 2-106(A) and (B).
In conclusion, the Board recommends that an attorney who provides financial services
through a law firm in connection with and related to the provision of legal services
should not charge a fee based upon the total value of a fund averaged over a definite
period, or as of definite dates, or taken as of a definite date. Such compensation may
possibly open the attorney and the attorney’s records to state regulation and inspection
under the Ohio Securities Act. The Board instead suggests the use of a fixed fee, flat or
hourly, provided that the fee is not excessive under DR 2-106(A) and (B).
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions
regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the
Attorney’s Oath of Office.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2000 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.