Can a lawyer enter a proposed contractual relationship with others for handling real estate closings?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. 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 published opinion is a single-line holding. It states that a proposed contractual relationship for real estate closings was permitted. The opinion does not set out the terms of the proposed relationship or the committee's reasoning in its published text.
The opinion is indexed under the rules then numbered RPC 5.3(c), 5.5(h), and 5.4, which address a lawyer's responsibilities for nonlawyer assistants, the unauthorized practice of law, and the sharing of fees and a lawyer's professional independence.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 correspond to Model Rules 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 and were later renumbered and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the committee approve the proposed real estate closing arrangement?
A: Per the opinion, yes. The committee's published holding is that the proposed contractual relationship for real estate closings was permitted.
Q: Does the opinion explain the terms it approved or its reasoning?
A: No. The published opinion is a one-line holding; it does not state the terms of the proposed relationship or the committee's analysis. It is indexed under the rules on nonlawyer assistants (RPC 5.3(c)), the unauthorized practice of law (RPC 5.5(h)), and fee sharing and professional independence (RPC 5.4).
Background and rules framework
The opinion is indexed under the rules then numbered Washington RPC 5.3(c) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), RPC 5.5(h) (unauthorized practice of law), and RPC 5.4 (professional independence; sharing of legal fees), corresponding to Model Rules 5.3, 5.5, and 5.4. Those rules govern the boundary between permissible work-sharing arrangements with nonlawyers and impermissible fee splitting or assistance with unauthorized practice. The published holding states only that the proposed contractual relationship for real estate closings was permitted.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 5.3(c) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), corresponding to Model Rule 5.3.
- Washington RPC 5.4 (professional independence; sharing of legal fees), corresponding to Model Rule 5.4.
- Washington RPC 5.5(h) (unauthorized practice of law), corresponding to Model Rule 5.5.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1143: a salaried lawyer at a nonprofit that bills members, and fee sharing under RPC 5.4
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1116: a collection agency preparing documents for a lawyer's review (RPC 5.3/5.5)
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1119: a partnership with a nonlawyer for a service not constituting the practice of law (RPC 5.4)
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=257
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1177
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 5.3(c); 5.5(h); 5.4
Subject: Real estate; fee splitting.
Proposed contractual relationship for real estate closings permitted.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1988 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.