Can a lawyer let clients finance legal fees through a nonlawyer company that pays the lawyer's vouchers minus a service charge and then collects from the client?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2026. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A nonlawyer-owned company offers an Oregon financing plan that lets clients finance legal fees. A participating lawyer negotiates fees as usual and may, in appropriate circumstances, tell the client about the plan; if the client uses it, the company sets up a credit facility, the lawyer submits vouchers for uncontested services that the client confirms, and the company pays the lawyer the voucher amount up to the credit limit, minus a 10 percent service charge, while the client repays the company with interest comparable to a credit card. The opinion asks whether the lawyer may participate, and answers yes, qualified.
On the collection aspect, the opinion applies Oregon RPC 5.4(a), which bars sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. It concludes the 10 percent service charge is not impermissible fee sharing, because the purpose of RPC 5.4(a) is to protect the lawyer's professional independence and it does not prohibit using a nonlawyer to collect fees even when the nonlawyer is paid from the collected fees. On the financing aspect, the opinion treats the plan as analogous to a client using a credit card to pay legal fees, which OSB Op. 2005-97 permits, including a comparable interest rate; it cautions that an excessive interest rate could make the fee excessive under RPC 1.15.
The opinion then flags two issues. First, a conflict of interest under Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2): although negotiating fees does not generally create a conflict, the lawyer may have a financial incentive to push the client into the plan to accelerate payment or avoid collection risk, so if there is a significant risk the lawyer's judgment would be materially limited by that interest, the lawyer should not offer the plan without the client's informed consent confirmed in writing. Second, confidentiality under Oregon RPC 1.6: because detailed vouchers could disclose information relating to the representation, the lawyer must either obtain the client's permission to disclose or ensure the vouchers do not reveal protected information.
In practice
The opinion holds that, under the current Oregon rules, a third-party fee-financing arrangement is permissible if it respects three lines: the company's cut is collection, not fee sharing; the lawyer's recommendation does not become self-interested steering without the client's written consent; and client information in the billing process stays protected. Per the opinion, the analysis turns on the lawyer's independence, the lawyer's own financial incentive, and the confidentiality of voucher detail. Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 1.6, 1.7, and 5.4 before relying on any specific point.
Common questions
Q: Is the financing company's service charge an illegal fee split with a nonlawyer?
A: No. The opinion concludes Oregon RPC 5.4(a) protects the lawyer's independence and does not prohibit a nonlawyer from collecting fees even when paid from the collected fees, so the service charge is permissible.
Q: Does recommending the financing plan create a conflict?
A: It can. Per the opinion, if there is a significant risk the lawyer's judgment would be materially limited by the lawyer's financial interest in the client choosing the plan, the lawyer needs the client's informed consent confirmed in writing under Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2) and (b).
Q: What about confidentiality when sending billing vouchers to the company?
A: The opinion concludes the lawyer must either obtain the client's permission to disclose or ensure the vouchers do not reveal information protected by Oregon RPC 1.6.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 5.4(a) (sharing fees with a nonlawyer; independence), Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2) (personal-interest conflicts), and Oregon RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), with reference to RPC 1.15 (fees and trust property) and 8.4(a)(3), corresponding to Model Rules 5.4, 1.7, and 1.6.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 5.4(a) / Model Rule 5.4 (sharing fees with a nonlawyer)
- Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2) / Model Rule 1.7 (personal-interest conflicts)
- Oregon RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
- Oregon RPC 1.15; 8.4(a)(3) (trust property; misrepresentation)
Cases:
- In re Griffith, 304 Or 575, 748 P2d 86 (1987)
Other opinions cited:
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-97 (credit cards; interest on fees)
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-98 (flat fees; excessive compensation)
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-54 (contingent to hourly on rejected settlement)
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-97: Fee-Agreement Modifications and Interest Charges
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-98: Flat Fees, Diligence, and Competence
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-22: Third-Party Payment of Fees
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-133.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2026 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.