Opinion 1836

[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).

Advisory Opinions are provided for the education of the Bar and reflect the opinion of the Committee on Professional Ethics (CPE) or its predecessors. Advisory Opinions are provided pursuant to the authorization granted by the Board of Governors, but are not individually approved by the Board and do not reflect the official position of the Bar association. Laws other than the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct may apply to the inquiry. The Committee's answer does not include or opine about any other applicable law other than the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct.