What concerns did the committee identify for a lawyer's proposed combined real estate brokerage and law practice?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer who also held a real estate broker's license proposed a professional service corporation offering both buyer brokerage and legal services. The committee quoted North Dakota Rule 1.7(b) and (c) on conflicts involving a lawyer's own interests and discussed the South Dakota decision Estate of Schuldt as guidance on a lawyer serving in more than one professional capacity.
The committee also pointed to Rule 5.4's restrictions on legal-fee sharing with nonlawyers and nonlawyer influence over professional judgment. It discussed the history of Model Rule 5.7 on ancillary services and said the North Dakota Supreme Court's prior refusal to add a proposed exception to Rule 5.4 suggested disfavor of multidisciplinary practice.
Its conclusion remained qualified: the committee said it was concerned that the specific proposal “may” violate the ethics rules. The opinion did not decide that every separate brokerage activity by a lawyer was prohibited.
Currency note
This opinion bears a 1992 opinion number and a February 9, 1993 header. Under the opinion-number-year rule, its issued date is recorded as 1992. It predates North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” Subsequent rule amendments or 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.
Common questions
Q: Did the committee approve the proposed combined corporation?
A: No. It identified concerns that the proposal might violate the conduct rules and gave no unconditional approval.
Q: Which North Dakota rules did it emphasize?
A: It discussed Rule 1.7's own-interest conflicts and Rule 5.4's restrictions on nonlawyer fee sharing and control.
Q: Did the committee say every lawyer-broker arrangement was prohibited?
A: No. Its conclusion was limited to concern that the described proposal might violate the rules.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies North Dakota Rules 1.7(b), 1.7(c), and 5.4 to a proposed combined service corporation. It discusses Model Rule 5.7 as historical context, rather than as an adopted North Dakota rule.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rule 1.7(b) and (c), lawyer-interest conflicts.
- North Dakota Rule 5.4, professional independence and nonlawyer fee sharing.
- Model Rule 5.7, discussed as an ancillary-services proposal.
Cases:
- Estate of Schuldt, 428 N.W.2d 251 (S.D. 1988), cited for a lawyer's conflicting roles.
See also
- ND Ethics Op. 1989-05: lawyer and accountant advertising
- ND Ethics Op. 19-02: dual practice and law-related services
Source
- Landing page: https://www.sband.org/page/ethics_opinions
- Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000id_/https://www.sband.org/resource/resmgr/docs/for_lawyers/92-17.pdf
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1992. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace