When a lawyer leaves a firm but keeps a contingent-fee client, can the firm and the lawyer divide the fee by hours worked?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. 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
The committee addressed a firm that had been employed to represent a client on a contingent fee basis where the lead counsel then left the firm but would continue to represent the client. The committee was of the opinion that the firm and the lawyer could enter into an agreement to divide the ultimate contingent fee in proportion to the numbers of hours worked on it by the lawyer and other members of the firm.
The committee was of the opinion that such an agreement would not be governed by RPC 1.5(e)(2), the rule on dividing fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The fee-division rule then numbered RPC 1.5(e)(2) corresponds to Model Rule 1.5(e) and was later amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific point.
Common questions
Q: Can a firm and a departing lawyer split a contingent fee on a shared case?
A: Per the opinion, yes. The committee was of the opinion they could agree to divide the ultimate contingent fee in proportion to the hours worked by the lawyer and by other members of the firm.
Q: Does the lawyer-to-lawyer fee-division rule apply to that split?
A: No. The committee was of the opinion that this kind of agreement is not governed by RPC 1.5(e)(2).
Q: What basis for the split did the committee describe?
A: Proportion to the number of hours worked on the matter by the departing lawyer and by other members of the firm.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addresses Washington RPC 1.5(e)(2), the rule on dividing a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm, corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(e). The committee distinguished this situation, an allocation between a firm and its own former member for the hours each put into the case, from the lawyer-to-lawyer division that rule governs, and concluded the rule does not control the split.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.5(e)(2) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(e); the committee held it does not govern this firm-and-former-member split.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1072: a pure referral fee to a lawyer who does no other work, under RPC 1.5(e)(2)
- WSBA Ethics Op. 941: whether lawyers in different firms must satisfy every requirement of RPC 1.5(e)(2)
- WSBA Ethics Op. 911: a lawyer who leaves a firm to work as a contract attorney for several firms
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=197
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1117
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.5(e)(2)
Subject: Division of fees; contingent fee
The Committee was of the opinion that where a law firm had been employed to represent a client on a contingent fee basis, and the lead counsel left the law firm but would continue to represent the client, the law firm and the lawyer could enter into an agreement to divide the ultimate contingent fee in proportion to the numbers of hours worked on it by the lawyer and other members of the law firm, and that such an agreement would not be governed by RPC 1.5(e)(2).
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1987 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.