Can a lawyer be employed by a financial planning firm to do legal work for its clients, or share office space with such a firm that refers clients?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry presented two arrangements. In the first, the attorney would be employed by a financial planning firm and would review existing wills and trusts of the firm's clients, proposing language to make the documents consistent with the financial plan developed by the firm. The committee could not perceive any method by which the attorney could proceed with that employment arrangement without violating RPC 5.5(b), and said there was a clear question of whether RPC 1.6, 1.7(b), 5.4(a) and (c), 7.2(c), and 7.3 would be violated as well.

In the second arrangement, the lawyer would share office space with the financial planning firm, but the firm would not share the lawyer's fees or hold an ownership interest in the law firm, and the firm would refer clients to the lawyer. The committee said the lawyer may have that association: the lawyer may share office space and support staff, but must at all times be mindful of RPC 1.6, 5.3, 5.4(b) and (c), 7.2(c), and 7.3, and must maintain separate identities.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7 (conflicts), 5.3 (nonlawyer assistants), 5.4 (professional independence; nonlawyer ownership and fee sharing), 5.5 (unauthorized practice), 7.2 (advertising), and 7.3 (solicitation).

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer be employed by a financial planning firm to do legal work for the firm's clients?

A: The committee could perceive no method of proceeding with that employment without violating RPC 5.5(b), and flagged a clear question of violating RPC 1.6, 1.7(b), 5.4(a) and (c), 7.2(c), and 7.3 as well.

Q: Can the lawyer instead share office space with the financial planning firm?

A: The committee said yes, where the firm does not share fees or hold an ownership interest: the lawyer may share office space and support staff but must maintain separate identities and observe RPC 1.6, 5.3, 5.4(b) and (c), 7.2(c), and 7.3.

Q: Can the financial planning firm refer clients to the lawyer?

A: The opinion describes the second scenario as the firm referring clients to the lawyer and permits that association, subject to the listed rules and to keeping the two practices' identities separate.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 5.5(b) (assisting the unauthorized practice of law, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 5.5) and RPC 5.4 (professional independence, nonlawyer ownership, and fee sharing, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 5.4) as the core bars to a lawyer practicing inside a financial planning firm, with RPC 1.6, 1.7(b), 5.3, 7.2(c), and 7.3 (corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 1.7, 5.3, 7.2, and 7.3) also in play. The committee distinguished employment by the nonlawyer firm (not permissible as proposed) from a separate practice that shares space and takes referrals (permissible with safeguards and separate identities).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.7(b)
• ABA Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants); Washington RPC 5.3
• ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence; nonlawyer ownership and fee sharing); Washington RPC 5.4(a), 5.4(b), 5.4(c)
• ABA Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law); Washington RPC 5.5(b)
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising; recommending services); Washington RPC 7.2(c)
• ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients); Washington RPC 7.3

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1630: Lawyer Also Working as Insurance Agent
• WA Ethics Op. 1687: Paying a Limited Practice Officer
• WA Ethics Op. 1693: Insurance-Agent Referrals & Fees

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=769

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1695
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 1.7(b); 5.3; 5.4(a); 5.4(b); 5.4(c), 5.5(b); 7.2(c); 7.3
Subject: Lawyer employed by financial planning firm to perform work for firm's clients; office sharing with nonlawyers; referrals

[Under the first scenario, the attorney, as an employee of a financial planning firm, reviews existing wills and trusts of the firm's clients and proposes language to make the documents consistent with the financial plan developed by the firm.] With respect to the arrangement described in the first scenario involving employment of an attorney by a financial planning firm: The Committee cannot perceive any method by which you may proceed without violating 5.5(b), and there is a clear question of whether RPC 1.6, 1.7(b), 5.4(a)(c), 7.2(c) and 7.3 would be violated as well.

[The second scenario proposed that the lawyer share office space with the financial planning firm but the financial planning firm would not share the lawyer's fees or have an ownership interest in the law firm. The financial planning firm would refer clients to the lawyer.] With respect to the arrangement described in the second scenario, you may have the association you described. You may share office space and support staff, but must at all times be mindful of RPC 1.6, 5.3, 5.4(b)(c), 7.2(c), and 7.3 and maintain separate identities.