Could a lawyer split collection fees or commissions with a non-lawyer collection agency or law list that forwarded the matter?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a lawyer could divide fees or commissions earned on collections forwarded by a collection agency, or received as a subscriber of a law list, with that agency or law list.

The Board answered no. It noted that on March 4, 1936, the Supreme Court approved an amendment to Rule 36 so that it then provided that no division of fees for legal services was proper except with another lawyer based on a division of service or responsibility, and that "the sharing of commissions between a forwarder of collections who is not a member of the bar and a receiver thereof who is a member of the bar, is condemned as being interdicted by this rule." Under its plain provisions, the Board concluded, the inquiry had to be answered in the negative.

This opinion marks the removal of the forwarder-commission exception that an earlier opinion, Oklahoma Opinion 10 (1931), had relied on to permit such sharing; the 1936 amendment eliminated that exception.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1936, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The rule cited here, Rule 36 as amended in 1936, belongs to that superseded canon-era code, though its core principle, that a lawyer may not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, persists in the modern fee-division rule. Subsequent rule amendments and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer share collection commissions with a forwarding collection agency in 1936?

A: No. The opinion held that the amended Rule 36 condemned sharing commissions between a non-lawyer forwarder and a lawyer receiver.

Q: How did this differ from the earlier rule?

A: The 1936 amendment removed the forwarder-commission exception. As the opinion notes, Rule 36 had previously contained an exception for the customary sharing of commissions on commercial collections, which an earlier opinion relied on; the amendment eliminated it.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 36 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct as amended March 4, 1936, which permitted fee division only with another lawyer based on division of service or responsibility and expressly condemned sharing collection commissions between a non-lawyer forwarder and a lawyer receiver. The rule was drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 36 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended Mar. 4, 1936): no division of fees except with another lawyer; sharing collection commissions between a non-lawyer forwarder and a lawyer receiver is condemned.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 10: Sharing a collection fee with a lay forwarder
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 7: Returning collected fees to a loan company
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 6: Remitting part of a foreclosure fee to the client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-107/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted March 27, 1936

The Board is in receipt of the following inquiry:

"Is it permissible for a member of the bar to divide fees or commissions earned on collections forwarded either by a collection agency or received as a subscriber of a law list, with such collection agency or law list?"

In response:

On March 4th, 1936, the Supreme Court approved an amendment to rule 36, suggested by the Board of Governors, so that the rule as amended now reads:

"No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a division of service or responsibility.

The sharing of commissions between a forwarder of collections who is not a member of the bar and a receiver thereof who is a member of the bar, is condemned as being interdicted by this rule."

Under its plain provisions the inquiry must be answered in the negative.