When lawyers in different firms split a fee in Washington, must they satisfy every requirement of RPC 1.5(e)(2)?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. 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 committee answered a question about how to read RPC 1.5(e)(2), the provision governing division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same law firm. It concluded that the semicolons separating the rule's phrases indicate the phrases are independent requirements, so a lawyer must comply with all of them to divide a fee with a lawyer in another firm.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The numbering and text of the fee-division rule may have changed since. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Are the requirements in RPC 1.5(e)(2) cumulative or alternatives?
A: The committee read them as cumulative. It concluded that the semicolons in RPC 1.5(e)(2) indicate compliance with all of the independent phrases is required when dividing fees between lawyers who are not in the same law firm.
Q: Does the opinion apply to fee splits inside one firm?
A: No. The opinion addresses dividing fees between lawyers who are not in the same law firm, which is the situation RPC 1.5(e) governs.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Washington RPC 1.5(e) (division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm), which corresponds to Model Rule 1.5(e). The committee's reading was textual: it treated the semicolons within subsection (e)(2) as separating independent conditions, each of which must be satisfied.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.5(e)(2) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5(e).
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 896: independent law partnership in a consulting firm's offices
- ABA Formal Op. 474: referral fees and conflict of interest
- ABA Formal Op. 94-388: relationships among law firms
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=52
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 941
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s): RPC 1.5 (e)(2)
Subject: Division of fees between lawyers in different law firms
The Committee was of the opinion that the semi-colons in RPC 1.5(e)(2) indicate that compliance with all of the independent phrases is required in dividing fees between lawyers who are not in the same law firm.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1985 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.