Can one lawyer cover another lawyer's practice, including phones and yellow-page ads, while that lawyer is on sabbatical?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. 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
Lawyer A proposed to maintain Lawyer B's phones and yellow-page advertising while Lawyer B was on sabbatical, and to inform all callers that Lawyer B was on sabbatical and that the covering lawyer was handling the calls. Based on the facts in the inquiry, the committee concluded that nothing in the proposed plan to cover for a lawyer going on sabbatical would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.
Common questions
Q: Can one lawyer keep another lawyer's phones and yellow-page ads running while that lawyer is on sabbatical?
A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee concluded that nothing in the proposed plan would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, where callers were told the lawyer was on sabbatical and that the covering lawyer was handling the calls.
Q: Did telling callers about the sabbatical matter to the result?
A: The plan the committee approved included informing all callers that the lawyer was on sabbatical and that the covering lawyer was handling the calls.
Q: Which rules did the committee consider?
A: The opinion lists RPC 1.5(e), 7.2, and 7.3, covering division of fees between lawyers, advertising, and direct contact with prospective clients.
Background and rules framework
The opinion considered Washington RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers), 7.2 (advertising), and 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients), corresponding to Model Rules 1.5, 7.2, and 7.3. The committee concluded the sabbatical-coverage plan, as described in the inquiry, did not violate those rules.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers), corresponding to Model Rule 1.5.
- Washington RPC 7.2 (advertising), corresponding to Model Rule 7.2.
- Washington RPC 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients), corresponding to Model Rule 7.3.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 987: keeping a departed lawyer's name in the firm name
- WSBA Ethics Op. 941: division of fees between different firms
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=106
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 995
Year Issued: 1986
RPC(s): RPC 1.5(e); 7.2; 7.3
Subject: Covering for lawyer on sabbatical
Lawyer A proposed to maintain Lawyer B's phones and yellow page advertising while Lawyer B was on sabbatical, and inform all callers that Lawyer B was on sabbatical and Lawyer is handling Lawyer A's calls. Based upon the facts set out in your inquiry, the Committee was of the opinion that nothing in your proposed plan to cover for a lawyer going on a sabbatical would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 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.