Can a lawyer charge a contingent fee to dissolve a non-marital domestic partnership where there are no children?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct says for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee was of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would prohibit a lawyer from representing a client on a contingent fee basis in a non-marital domestic partnership breakup in which there were no children. The committee added that it essentially agreed with the legal analysis the inquirer had set out in a letter dated January 5, 1987.
The opinion is brief and adopts the inquirer's analysis rather than restating it. The reproduced text below is the committee's full statement.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The contingent-fee rules then numbered RPC 1.5(c) and 1.5(d) correspond to Model Rule 1.5(c) and (d) and were later amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer take a contingent fee in a non-marital domestic partnership dissolution?
A: Per the opinion, yes, at least where there are no children. The committee was of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibited it.
Q: Did the committee reach this conclusion as to partnerships involving children?
A: No. The opinion's conclusion is limited to a breakup "in which there were no children"; it does not address a partnership dissolution involving children.
Background and rules framework
The opinion is keyed to Washington RPC 1.5(c) and 1.5(d), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(c) and (d). RPC 1.5(c) governs contingent fees generally, and RPC 1.5(d) lists the matters in which contingent fees are prohibited. The committee treated a non-marital domestic partnership breakup without children as outside the prohibited category, agreeing with the inquirer's analysis rather than writing its own.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.5(c) (contingent fees), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(c).
- Washington RPC 1.5(d) (prohibited contingent fees), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(d).
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1025: a contingent fee in a civil forfeiture case related to criminal charges
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1024: a contingent fee measured against a collection agency's own recovery
- WSBA Ethics Op. 978: a contingent fee that exceeds a court-awarded statutory fee
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=185
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1074
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.5(c); 1.5(d)
Subject: Contingent fee in non-marital domestic partnership dissolution
The Committee was of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would prohibit a lawyer form representing a client in a non-marital domestic partnership breakup in which there were no children on a contingent fee basis. Essentially, the Committee agreed with the legal analysis set out in your letter of January 5, 1987.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1987. Ezel checks the current Washington 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