Can two firms share a contingent fee, telling the client the firms are jointly responsible and the split will not increase the client's fee?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. 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 lawyer proposed a contingent fee agreement stating, in pertinent part, that the law firm would associate with other counsel, that Law Firm A and Law Firm B would be jointly responsible for legal services in the matter, that a division of fees would be made, and that the division would not increase attorney fees to the client.
The committee was of the opinion that the proposed fee agreement complies with RPC 1.5(c)(2) and 1.5(e) so long as both lawyers sign the agreement. The committee added that it cannot comment on the reasonableness of the total fee in any particular case, nor on any particular division of fees in a case.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can two firms split a contingent fee on one matter?
A: Under this 1991 opinion, yes; the committee was of the opinion the proposed agreement complies with RPC 1.5(c)(2) and 1.5(e) so long as both lawyers sign it.
Q: Did the committee bless the size of the fee or the split?
A: No. The committee said it cannot comment on the reasonableness of the total fee or any particular division of fees in a case.
Q: What did the agreement tell the client?
A: That the two firms were jointly responsible for the legal services and that the division of fees would not increase the attorney fees to the client.
Background and rules framework
At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.5(c) governed contingent fee agreements and RPC 1.5(e) governed division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm, the subjects the Model Rules place in Rule 1.5. The committee treated joint responsibility, the no-increase term, and both lawyers' signatures as satisfying those provisions, while reserving the fact-specific reasonableness question.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees; contingent fees; division of fees)
- Washington RPC 1.5(c)(2), 1.5(e)
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=478
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
[The lawyer proposed using a contingent fee agreement, stating in pertinent part, "The law firm will associate with other counsel in this matter. It is understood that Law Firm A and Law Firm B are jointly responsible for legal services in this matter, and a division of fees will be made. This division will not increase attorney fees to the client." ] The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a proposed contingent fee agreement. The Committee was of the opinion that your proposed fee agreement complies with RPC 1.5(c)(2) and 1.5(e) so long as both lawyers sign the agreement. The Committee cannot comment on the reasonableness of the total fee in any particular case nor any particular division of fees in a case.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1991 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.