Can a lawyer share a contingent fee with another lawyer from a different firm who earlier handled the matter?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a lawyer who wished to pay fees to a lawyer who previously handled a tort claim on behalf of an estate. The committee analyzed the question as a division of fees between lawyers in different firms.

The committee concluded that the proposed fee sharing does not appear to be improper if, as it assumed, the portion of the fee the inquirer intends to pay the other lawyer is proportional to the services provided to the estate, if the client is advised of and does not object to either attorney's involvement, and if the overall contingent fee is reasonable. The committee cited RPC 1.5(e) and Barr v. Day, 124 Wn.2d 318, 330 n.2 (1994).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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(e) corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), which permits a division of a fee between lawyers of different firms only in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, with the client's written agreement, where each lawyer assumes joint responsibility, and only where the total fee is reasonable.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer pay part of a fee to a lawyer from another firm who earlier handled the matter?

A: The committee concluded the fee sharing does not appear improper if the payment is proportional to the services the other lawyer provided, the client is advised and does not object, and the overall contingent fee is reasonable.

Q: What conditions did the committee identify?

A: Proportionality to the services provided to the estate, the client being advised of and not objecting to either lawyer's involvement, and an overall reasonable contingent fee, citing RPC 1.5(e).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.5(e). The committee made the propriety of the division turn on proportionality to services performed, client notice and lack of objection, and the overall reasonableness of the contingent fee, citing Barr v. Day.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees; division of a fee between lawyers); Washington RPC 1.5(e)

Cases:

• Barr v. Day, 124 Wn.2d 318, 330 n.2 (1994), cited on the division of fees.

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1072: Referral Fees Between Lawyers
• WA Ethics Op. 1117: Departing Lawyer, Fee Split
• WA Ethics Op. 1812: Referral Fee After a Conflict

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1023

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1830
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.5(e)
Subject: Division of fees between lawyers in different firms

[The lawyer wished to pay fees to a lawyer who previously handled a tort claim on behalf of an estate.] I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1830 concerning fee sharing.

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

The proposed fee sharing does not appear to be improper if, as we assume, the portion of the fee the inquirer intends to pay the other lawyer is proportional to the services provided to the estate, if the client is advised of and does not object to either attorney's involvement, and if the overall contingent fee is reasonable. See RPC 1.5(e) and Barr v. Day, 124 Wn.2d 318, 330 n.2 (1994).