Can a lawyer rent space in a shared-office building where non-lawyer tenants use the same receptionist, secretarial pool, and library?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a planned small office building furnishing a shared receptionist, telephone communication center, secretarial pool, conference room, and basic law library for the joint use of tenants who had individual offices, with the space made available to young businessmen and lawyers. The question was whether a lawyer would violate the canons by taking office space in such a building.

The Committee concluded it would not be unethical, subject to conditions. It noted it had never held that a lawyer may not office in a suite with a non-lawyer, and that sharing facilities with a non-lawyer or with another lawyer who is not a partner is not unusual. In an arrangement like this, however, great care should be taken with the shingle and door names so there is no improper indication that the individual practitioners constitute a firm or that a lawyer and a non-lawyer are partners, and preserving client confidences could become a practical problem with the shared secretarial pool. On the question of "feeding" a law practice, the Committee said such a situation would not necessarily develop here: while feeding a law practice from controlled businesses is condemned, a non-lawyer's inclination to use a nearby lawyer for routine matters does not constitute an unethical feeder-type situation. The Committee ruled 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1963, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer share office space and facilities with non-lawyers?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The Committee said it is not unethical to rent offices in a building where businessmen also office and common facilities are shared, subject to the sign and confidentiality conditions.

Q: What sign and naming precautions did the Committee require?

A: Great care should be taken with the shingle and door names so there is no improper indication that the individual practitioners constitute a firm or that a lawyer and a non-lawyer are partners.

Q: Does a shared secretarial pool raise a confidentiality concern?

A: The Committee said preserving client confidences may become a practical problem in connection with the proposed shared secretarial pool, so care must be taken.

Q: Is locating near non-lawyers an improper "feeder" arrangement?

A: No. The Committee said a non-lawyer's inclination to use a nearby lawyer for routine matters does not constitute an unethical feeder-type situation, even though feeding a law practice from controlled businesses is condemned.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 30, on partnerships, and 34, on preserving client confidences, as applied to shared-office arrangements with non-lawyers. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.5, on firm names and signs, Model Rule 1.6, on confidentiality of information, and Model Rule 5.4, on professional independence in dealings with non-lawyers.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), as the modern analog
• MR 1.6 (confidentiality of information), as the modern analog
• MR 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 30 and 34 (former canons)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 275: Law Firm Members Sharing Offices With Their Separate Oil Partnership
• TX Ethics Op. 285: "General Practice" on a Lawyer's Office Door Sign
• TX Ethics Op. 290: Lawyer Title-Insurance Agent Distributing Branded Contract Forms

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-270/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_270.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

A small office building is planned in which a receptionist, telephone communication center, secretarial pool, conference room and basic law library would be furnished for the use jointly, of the tenants who have individual offices in the building. Such office space and facilities are to be made available to young business men and lawyers. Would it be a violation of the Canons of Ethics for a lawyer to take office space in a building having such an arrangement?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 344 (1966)

PARTNERSHIPS - CONFIDENCES OF A CLIENT
It is not unethical for members to rent offices in a building where business men also have offices and where a receptionist, telephone communication center, secretarial pool, conference room and law library are furnished to be used in common by all tenants provided there are no improper indications, as on shingles or signs on doors, that the individual practitioners constitute a firm, or that a lawyer and a non-lawyer are partners; and provided, further, that care is taken to preserve the confidences of the member's clients.

Canons 30, 34.

The Ethics Committee has never held that a lawyer may not office in a suite with a non- lawyer and the practice of a member's sharing office facilities with a non-lawyer or with another lawyer not his partner is not unusual. However, in an arrangement such as that described in the inquiry, great care should be taken in regard to the "shingle" or names on the door so that there will be no improper indication that the individual practitioners constitute a firm and no improper indication that a lawyer and a non-lawyer are partners. And preserving confidences may become a practical problem in connection with the proposed secretarial pool.

The question of "feeding" a law practice was brought up, but it is not felt that such a situation would necessarily develop under the circumstances outlined. "Feeding" a law practice from controlled businesses is, of course, condemned, but it is the opinion of the committee that a non- lawyer would be inclined to use the legal services of a lawyer whose office is nearby, whether in the same suite or building and that this would particularly be true as to routine legal matters. This does not constitute an unethical "feeder-type situation." (9-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 270 (1963)