Could a Vermont lawyer share space and work with a financial planner while running a separate law practice?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer proposed sharing space with a financial planner, helping in the planning business, and maintaining a separate law practice. The businesses might refer clients to one another, but did not propose splitting legal fees.
The committee found neither office sharing nor dual professional work automatically barred. It expressly declined to approve the particular plan because important details were missing. For office sharing, it focused on practical safeguards for client confidences, such as separate communications, files, billing systems, and staff where feasible.
For the dual practice and referrals, the opinion addressed independent judgment, disclosure and consent when interests conflicted, truthful presentation of the separate businesses, improper solicitation, and fee splitting. It said a referral to the lawyer from the planner could be accepted when warranted and unpaid, without an expectation of reciprocal business or control. It did not decide every feature of the proposed arrangement.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1995 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999; the court later made comprehensive amendments in 2009. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 this exact office arrangement?
A: No. It said office sharing and dual work were not per se barred, but withheld an opinion on the specific plan without fuller facts.
Q: What safeguards did the committee discuss for shared space?
A: It focused on keeping client confidences protected through physical and procedural separation where feasible.
Q: Could the financial planner refer a client to the lawyer?
A: The opinion allowed a warranted, unpaid referral without an expectation of reciprocal business or control, subject to applicable disclosure and consent.
Q: Could the lawyer split legal fees with the planner?
A: The proposed facts did not contemplate splitting legal fees, and the opinion identified the Code’s bar on such fee division.
Background and rules framework
The opinion canvassed former Code provisions on confidentiality, nonlawyer practice and fee sharing, advertising, solicitation, and independent judgment. It referred to Vermont Opinions 79-22 and 80-15 on shared offices, and 79-16 and 81-9 on dual professional work.
Citations and references
Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:
- DR 4-101, DR 3-101, DR 3-102, DR 3-103, DR 2-101, DR 2-103, DR 5-101(A), DR 5-107
See also
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 95-15
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current Vermont 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