Can lawyers also own and operate a title insurance company, refer their clients' title work to it, and share a building with it?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. 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-85-5 addressed a group of attorneys who were shareholders of a law service corporation and also shareholders of a title insurance and abstract company located in the same building. The committee answered three questions.
On dual practice, the committee concluded that no disciplinary rule prohibits a lawyer from engaging simultaneously in the practice of law and another business (citing former SCR 20.08(5) and its Formal Opinion E-82-11). Drawing on ABA Formal Opinion 328, it noted that when the second occupation is so law-related, as with title insurance, the attorney will almost inevitably engage to some extent in the practice of law and will be held to the standards of the bar and the Code while doing so.
On referrals, the committee concluded that an attorney engaged by a client in a real estate transaction may refer title insurance and abstract matters to an owned company only with full disclosure of the financial interest (citing ABA Formal Opinions 331 and 304 and former SCR 20.23(1)). The concern is the conflict arising from the attorney's financial gain in referring such work to a company the attorney owns, which may influence the attorney's judgment on the need for the insurance.
On the shared building, the committee, relying on its Memorandum Opinion 4/77A, concluded the law office and the title company may operate in the same building only if it is clear to the public that they are entirely separate and independent: they should not occupy the same physical space, should have separate telephones, and there should be an office directory with separate listings.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it analyzes conduct under the former Code. The conflict and disclosure concerns are now addressed by SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 and SCR 20:1.8 / Model Rule 1.8, and law-related (ancillary) services by Model Rule 5.7. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 also run a title insurance business?
A: The committee concluded yes; no rule bars practicing law and writing title insurance at once, but the lawyer is held to the Code while conducting the title work because it is so law-related.
Q: Can the lawyer steer a client's title work to a company the lawyer owns?
A: The committee concluded only with full disclosure of the financial interest, because the lawyer's financial gain could influence judgment on the need for the insurance.
Q: Can the law office and title company share a building?
A: The committee concluded yes, only if it is clear to the public they are separate entities, with separate space, separate telephones, and separate directory listings.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted the former Code's provisions on outside business (SCR 20.08(5)) and self-interest conflicts (SCR 20.23(1)), as applied to lawyers who also owned a title insurance company. Those concerns are now governed by SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7, SCR 20:1.8 / Model Rule 1.8, and Model Rule 5.7 on law-related services.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Wis. SCR 20.08(5), 20.23(1) / Model Rule 1.7, Model Rule 1.8 (conflicts of interest; outside business) (former Code provisions)
- Model Rule 5.7 (law-related services)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Opinions 328, 331, 304
- Wisconsin Formal Op. E-82-11
- Wisconsin Memorandum Opinion 4/77A
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-86-3: Attorney-Realtor Dual Practice, Fees, and Conflicts
- WI Ethics Op. E-88-1: Law Degrees on an Accountant's Business Card
- WI Ethics Op. E-93-6: Retaining a Financial Planner for Estate Planning
Source
- Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-85-5.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1985 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.