Can a lawyer team up with a nonlawyer to run a medical-ethics consulting practice and share fees and a joint name?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer proposed to associate with a nonlawyer to work as a consultant on medical ethics. The committee understood that the two did not intend to form a partnership or corporation, but intended to join their names in a way that would convey an association to the public. The committee was of the opinion that whether the proposal would constitute the practice of law was a question of law, which the committee could not determine.

To the extent the lawyer would be practicing law, the committee said, the lawyer could not share fees with a nonlawyer. The committee also directed that the lawyer's attention be called to RPC 7.1 regarding law firm names, for the lawyer's consideration of how he held himself out as a lawyer in promoting the consultant practice.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer share fees with the nonlawyer consultant?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, not to the extent the lawyer would be practicing law. The committee said fees from law practice could not be shared with a nonlawyer.

Q: Did the committee decide whether the consulting was the practice of law?

A: No. It said that was a question of law it could not determine, and conditioned its fee-sharing answer on that determination.

Q: What did the committee say about the joint name?

A: It pointed the lawyer to RPC 7.1 on firm names, in connection with how the lawyer held himself out as a lawyer while promoting the consulting practice.

Background and rules framework

RPC 5.4(b), Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 5.4, bars a lawyer from forming a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of its activities consist of the practice of law, and RPC 5.5(b) addresses assisting the unauthorized practice of law. RPC 7.1, as Washington then numbered it, governed misleading communications and firm names; the subject corresponds to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5. The committee left the threshold practice-of-law question to a legal determination, applied the nonlawyer fee-sharing bar conditionally, and flagged the naming rule for the joint venture.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence; sharing fees with nonlawyers)
• ABA Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law)
• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• Washington RPC 5.4(b); RPC 5.5(b); RPC 7.1

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1269: Rebating Salary for Court-Awarded Fees
• WA Ethics Op. 1271: Shared Phone Line Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=350

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning your proposal to associate with a non-lawyer to work as a consultant on medical ethics. The Committee understood that you do not intend to be either a partnership or corporation, but intend to join your names in a way that would convey association to the public. The Committee is of the opinion that whether your proposal would constitute the practice of law is a question of law, which the Committee cannot determine, but that to the extent that you would be practicing law, you could not share fees with a non-lawyer. Also, in that regard, the Committee directed that your attention be called to RPC 7.1 regarding law firm names, for your consideration regarding holding yourself out as a lawyer in promoting your consultant practice.