WSBA 1995

Can a lawyer collect on claims owned by a collection-agency client without running into the rule against fee splitting?

Short answer: The committee was of the opinion that as long as it is clear the lawyer is collecting on claims owned by the client and the fee agreement complies with RPC 1.5, there is no fee-splitting problem and the arrangement is proper.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. 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 Not binding precedent.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

A lawyer asked about an arrangement with a client that is a collection agency, where the agency asked the lawyer to collect on claims owned by the agency. The committee understood the facts to be that the lawyer would be collecting on claims owned by the client.

The committee was of the opinion that as long as it is clear that the lawyer was collecting on claims owned by the client, and so long as the fee agreement complied with the requirements of RPC 1.5, there would be no problem with fee splitting and it would be a proper arrangement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.5 corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees).

Common questions

Q: Is it fee splitting for a lawyer to collect on a collection agency's own claims?

A: The committee said no, as long as it is clear the lawyer is collecting on claims owned by the client and the fee agreement complies with RPC 1.5.

Q: What did the committee say had to be clear in the arrangement?

A: The committee tied its conclusion to it being clear that the lawyer was collecting on claims owned by the client, with a fee agreement that meets RPC 1.5.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed RPC 1.5 (fees, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.5). The committee treated the question as turning on whether the claims were owned by the client, so that the lawyer was collecting the client's own debts under a compliant fee agreement rather than splitting fees with a nonlawyer.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees); Washington RPC 1.5

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=721

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1638
Year Issued: 1995
RPC(s): RPC 1.5
Subject: Division of fees; lawyer shares fees with collection agency client

The Committee understood the facts to be that you have a client which is a collection agency, which has asked you to collect on claims owned by the agency. The Committee was of the opinion that as long as it is clear that the lawyer was collecting on claims owned by his client, and so long as your fee agreement complied with the requirements of RPC 1.5, there would be no problem with fee splitting and it would be a proper arrangement.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1995 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.