WSBA 1989

Is it fee-splitting with a nonlawyer for a salaried lawyer to keep court-awarded fees but rebate to the employer the salary paid for that case?

Short answer: The committee concluded that this arrangement was not a splitting of fees with a nonlawyer, and that so long as the fees otherwise complied with RPC 1.5(a) there was nothing ethically improper about it.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described an agreement between a lawyer and the lawyer's employer about court-awarded attorney fees. As the committee understood the facts, the lawyer was paid a salary whether a case was won or lost, and if the lawyer was awarded attorney fees, the lawyer kept those fees and rebated to the employer the portion of the salary paid for the lawyer's time on that matter.

The committee was of the opinion that this did not constitute a splitting of fees with a nonlawyer. So long as the fees otherwise complied with RPC 1.5(a), the committee found nothing ethically improper with the conduct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was the salary-rebate arrangement fee-splitting with a nonlawyer?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, no. The committee concluded that rebating salary to the employer for court-awarded fees was not a prohibited division of fees with a nonlawyer.

Q: Was there any condition on the arrangement?

A: Yes. The committee found nothing improper so long as the fees otherwise complied with RPC 1.5(a).

Background and rules framework

RPC 5.4(a), Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 5.4, generally bars a lawyer from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, and RPC 1.5(a), Washington's version of Model Rule 1.5, requires fees to be reasonable. The committee read the salary-rebate arrangement as outside the fee-splitting prohibition, leaving RPC 1.5(a) reasonableness as the operative limit.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence; sharing fees with nonlawyers)
ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees)
Washington RPC 5.4(a); RPC 1.5(a)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=349

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning an agreement with your employer regarding court awarded attorney's fees. The Committee understood the facts to be that you are paid a salary whether you win or lose a case, and that if you are awarded attorney fees you keep those fees and rebate to your employer that portion of the salary paid for your time spent on that matter. The Committee was of the opinion that this did not constitute a splitting of fees with a non-lawyer, and so long as the fees otherwise complied with RPC 1.5(a), there is nothing ethically improper with such conduct.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1989 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.