Can a lawyer rent office space from a nonlawyer business owned by her spouse?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a lawyer proposing to rent an office from her husband's vocational rehabilitation consulting firm. As proposed, the lawyer would have a private phone line and her own facsimile machine in her own office, would keep all client files locked in her private office, would not represent a firm competing with her husband's, would not retain her husband as an expert witness, and would not represent her husband's employees or injured-worker clients.

The committee concluded that the proposed office-sharing arrangement satisfactorily answers concerns for confidentiality and secrets under RPC 1.6, 1.7, and 7.3, assuming the lawyer takes the actions proposed in the inquiry. It concluded that the inquirer's proposed restrictions on her practice satisfy RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest) and RPC 7.3, assuming the lawyer does not accept any of her husband's clients for legal work. Finally, assuming the identity of her law practice is kept completely separate from her husband's vocational rehabilitation business, the committee concluded the arrangement also complies with RPC 5.4(b), (c), and (d).

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 1.6, 1.7, 5.4, and 7.3 correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7 (conflict of interest), 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer), and 7.3 (solicitation); the advertising and solicitation rules were later amended, so verify the current numbering before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer rent office space from a spouse's nonlawyer business?

A: The committee concluded the proposed arrangement satisfies RPC 1.6, 1.7, and 7.3, provided the lawyer takes the proposed confidentiality steps and keeps the two practices separate.

Q: What restrictions did the committee rely on?

A: That the lawyer keeps files locked in her private office, uses her own phone and fax, does not represent her husband's clients or a competing firm, and does not retain her husband as an expert witness.

Q: Does the arrangement satisfy the professional-independence rule?

A: The committee concluded that, assuming the lawyer keeps her practice's identity completely separate from her husband's business, the arrangement complies with RPC 5.4(b), (c), and (d).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), RPC 5.4(b), (c), and (d) (professional independence of a lawyer), and RPC 7.3 (solicitation), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 1.7, 5.4, and 7.3. The committee made the propriety of the office-sharing arrangement turn on the lawyer's confidentiality safeguards, her declining all of her husband's clients, and keeping the law practice's identity separate from the nonlawyer business.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7
• ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer); Washington RPC 5.4(b), (c), (d)
• ABA Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients); Washington RPC 7.3

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1817: Office-Share, Same Accident
• WA Ethics Op. 1816: Paralegal-Run Branch Office
• WA Ethics Op. 1051: Lawyer Referral Service and UPL

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1029

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1836
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 1.7; 5.4; 7.3
Subject: Sharing office space with nonlawyer

[The lawyer proposed renting an office from her husband's vocational rehabilitation consulting firm. The lawyer would have a private phone line, her own facsimile machine in her own office, and would keep all client files locked in her private office. The lawyer would not represent a firm competing with her husband's, would not retain her husband as an expert witness, and would not represent her husband's employees or injured worker clients.] I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethical inquiry #1836 concerning office sharing with a non-lawyer.

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

The proposed office sharing arrangement satisfactorily answers concerns for confidentiality and secrets under RPC 1.6, 1.7, and 7.3, assuming the lawyer takes actions proposed in the inquiry. The inquirer's proposed restrictions on her practice satisfy RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest) and RPC 7.3, assuming that the lawyer does not accept any of her husband's clients for legal work. Assuming that the identity of her law practice business is kept completely separate from her husband's vocational rehabilitation business, her proposed office sharing arrangement also complies with RPC 5.4(b), (c), and (d).