Can Wisconsin and out-of-state law firms form an interstate association and share fees, and how must they describe the relationship on their letterheads?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1979. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion E-79-9 considered a Wisconsin lawyers service corporation near the Michigan border that wanted to associate with two Michigan law firms. Each firm would keep its own identity, offices, and trust accounts and remain independent, but each would provide legal services to clients of the others on referral. The Wisconsin corporation would serve Michigan associates' clients in Wisconsin, charging the Michigan firms at its normal hourly rates while the Michigan firms collected the full fee from the client. Each firm's letterhead would identify its own name and list the others as "Wisconsin office" or "Michigan offices," noting the jurisdictions of admission. The participants also expected to cooperate on equipment, libraries, and computer time and to place a tombstone-type newspaper advertisement.
On the practice of law across state lines, the committee formally adopted ABA Formal Opinion 316 (Jan. 18, 1967). Quoting that opinion, it said that subject to the fee-division requirements of Canon 34, the Canons do not purport to control the financial arrangements between lawyers who associate for interstate practice; such lawyers may be partners, associates, or employees, and may share fees by division of responsibility or be paid a salary or per diem. What matters is that the local lawyer is admitted in the state and is able to make, and be responsible for making, decisions for the lawyer group.
On the letterhead, the committee found the proposal deceptive and misleading and in violation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's order of April 30, 1979. Using "Michigan offices" implied an actual partnership and misled the reader about the relationship between the firms; if the Michigan firms used "Wisconsin office," they would imply they were authorized to practice in Wisconsin. The committee said that if the letterheads added, after the out-of-state lawyer's name and address under an "Of Counsel" heading, a phrase such as "Not admitted to practice in (state)" or "Admitted only in (state)" to negate any implication of entitlement to practice, they would comply with the Canons; without such an addition the letterheads would be improper, citing ABA Informal Opinion 1007.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1979, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Canons (including Canon 34 on fee division) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court's April 30, 1979 advertising order. The current counterparts are SCR 20:5.5 / Model Rule 5.5 (multijurisdictional practice and unauthorized practice) and SCR 20:7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names, letterheads, and jurisdictional limitations on practice). 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 law firms in different states associate and share fees?
A: Yes. The committee adopted ABA Formal Opinion 316 and concluded that the Canons do not control how associated lawyers in different states are paid, so long as the local lawyer is admitted in the state and is responsible for decisions.
Q: What was wrong with the proposed letterhead?
A: The committee found it misleading: "Michigan offices" implied an actual partnership, and "Wisconsin office" on the Michigan firms' letterhead implied authority to practice in Wisconsin.
Q: How could the letterhead be made proper?
A: By listing the out-of-state lawyer under an "Of Counsel" heading with a disclaimer such as "Not admitted to practice in (state)" or "Admitted only in (state)" to negate any implication of entitlement to practice.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the former Canons on interstate practice and fee division (adopting ABA Formal Opinion 316) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court's April 30, 1979 advertising standards to a proposed multistate firm association. The current counterparts are SCR 20:5.5 / Model Rule 5.5 (multijurisdictional practice) and SCR 20:7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 5.5 / SCR 20:5.5 (multijurisdictional practice); former Canon 34 (fee division)
- Model Rule 7.5 / SCR 20:7.5 (firm names and letterheads; jurisdictional limitations)
Other authority:
- Wisconsin Supreme Court order of April 30, 1979 (advertising standards)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Opinion 316 (Jan. 18, 1967): the practice of law across state lines (adopted)
- ABA Informal Opinion 1007: "Of Counsel" admission disclaimers on letterheads
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-79-3: Commerce Consultant Corporation and Letterhead
- WI Ethics Op. E-80-16: Law Office Trade Name
- WI Ethics Op. E-83-22: Public Office on Attorney Letterhead
Source
- Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-79-9.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1979 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.