Advisory Opinion:
2127
Year Issued:
2006
RPC(s):
RPC 1.5(e)
Subject:
Fee splitting w/contract lawyer based on contingency fee
A temporary lawyer asks whether a proposed contract arrangement in which she will be directly supervised by the hiring lawyer and will bill the hiring lawyer for hours worked, but will be paid only for hours that the hiring lawyer bills to and collects from the client, violates RPC 1.5(e) regarding fee-splitting between lawyers. This situation does not implicate RPC 1.5(e), which by its terms applies to "a division of fee between lawyers." Comment [7] to ABA Model Rule 1.5, which has been proposed for adoption by the WSBA and is now pending before the Washington Supreme Court, defines a division of a fee under the rule as "a single billing to a client covering the fee of two or more lawyers who are not in the same firm." Under the proposed arrangement, the gross fee paid by the client to the hiring lawyer is not shared with the temporary lawyer, so there is no division of a fee implicating RPC 1.5(e). See ABA Formal Ethics Op. 88-356 (where a law firm pays a temporary lawyer reasonable compensation for services performed for the firm and does not charge the payments thereafter to the client as a disbursement, RPC 1.5(e) does not apply “because the gross fee the client pays the firm is not shared with the temporary lawyer”).
Finally, there may be other important ethics issues besides fee-splitting implicated in any temporary lawyer scenario for both the hiring and the temporary lawyers. We have not been asked about those and we are not commenting on them in this informal opinion.
***