What must lawyers do when they share office space, staff, and equipment with other lawyers or with nonlawyers?

Plain-English summary

Opinion E-00-02 considered the conditions under which a lawyer or law firm could share office space, support staff, and equipment with lawyers not in the same firm or with nonlawyers. The committee concluded the rules did not prohibit such arrangements as long as adequate protection was taken for clients' interests, and it walked through the areas of risk. The first was confidentiality under SCR 20:1.6(a): lawyers sharing space had to ensure that outsiders could not intentionally or inadvertently access client files, communications, mail, telephone, fax, email, or voicemail, through measures such as locked files, secured correspondence, restricted access, divided space, and staff training. The committee noted that even negligent disclosure of privileged communications could defeat the attorney-client privilege (citing Wis. Stat. 905.03).

The second area was holding out. Lawyers sharing space had to avoid misleading the public into thinking separate entities were affiliated or the same firm. Office-sharing lawyers who were not in the same firm could not share letterhead or use a combined name like "Smith & Jones" on stationery, cards, signage, or advertising (citing SCR 20:7.5(d), 20:7.1(a), and E-90-1); disclaimers such as "not a legal partnership" would not necessarily cure a violation, and "if a group of lawyers want to appear to be a law firm, they must be a law firm." Whether an association actually was a firm was a legal question beyond the committee, but it could be evidenced by formal legal status, a common trust account, shared malpractice coverage, joint case work, and shared income and liabilities.

The committee also addressed conflicts, staff, and fees. Office-sharing lawyers had to watch for conflicts arising from their business or personal relationships, which could materially limit a representation under SCR 20:1.7(b) or threaten confidentiality under SCR 20:1.6(a); such conflicts could be waived in writing with proper disclosure (citing ABA Informal Op. 1486). Shared staff had to understand the entities were separate and observe heightened care for each set of clients' confidences (SCR 20:5.3(b)), and a shared receptionist should answer generically ("law offices"). When office-sharing lawyers co-counseled and shared a fee, they should generally bill separately, and any fee division was subject to SCR 20:1.5(e). The committee withdrew E-86-2 as superseded.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct (the state's Ethics 2000 update). 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: Could lawyers share office space with nonlawyers or with lawyers from other firms?

A: Yes, with safeguards. The committee concluded the rules did not prohibit sharing office space, staff, or equipment as long as adequate protection was taken for clients' interests, especially confidentiality.

Q: Could office-sharing lawyers use a common name or letterhead?

A: No, if they were not actually a firm. The committee concluded that lawyers not in the same firm could not share letterhead or use a combined name under SCR 20:7.5(d) and 20:7.1(a), and that disclaimers would not necessarily cure the misleading impression.

Q: What about a shared receptionist or shared staff?

A: Permitted, with care. The committee concluded that shared staff had to understand the entities were separate and protect each client's confidences under SCR 20:5.3(b), and that a shared receptionist should answer with a generic greeting rather than naming the lawyers as if one firm.

Q: Could office-sharing lawyers split a fee on a shared case?

A: Yes, subject to the fee-division rule. The committee concluded that any sharing of a fee among lawyers not in the same firm was governed by SCR 20:1.5(e), and that the lawyers should generally bill separately to avoid implying they were one firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted SCR 20:1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), SCR 20:7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 and SCR 20:7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (firm names and holding out), SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts), SCR 20:5.3 / Model Rule 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer staff), and SCR 20:1.5(e) / Model Rule 1.5 (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm). It also referenced Wis. Stat. 905.03 (attorney-client privilege).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Wis. SCR 20:1.6(a) / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
• Wis. SCR 20:7.5(d) / Model Rule 7.5 and SCR 20:7.1(a) / Model Rule 7.1 (firm names; misleading communications)
• Wis. SCR 20:1.7(b) / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts)
• Wis. SCR 20:5.3(b) / Model Rule 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer staff)
• Wis. SCR 20:1.5(e) / Model Rule 1.5 (division of fees)

Statutes:

• Wis. Stat. 905.03 (attorney-client privilege)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Op. 1486
• Wisconsin Ethics Ops. E-90-1, E-86-13, E-00-01; E-86-2 (withdrawn by this opinion)

See also

• DC Ethics Op. 244: Nonlawyer Partner's Name in a Firm Name
• DC Ethics Op. 332: Firm Names for Solo Practitioners

Source

• Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-00-02.pdf