Opinion 1624

The Committee discussed your inquiry regarding whether it is a violation of the rule prohibiting fee splitting with a non-lawyer paralegal wherein compensation of the non-lawyer is contingent on an award of reasonable attorney's fees under a fee shifting statute and the non-lawyer's compensation will be separately petitioned for. The Committee was of the opinion that this proposed arrangement does not violate RPC 5.4(a), provided that the non-lawyer is compensated on an hourly rate basis and not based on a fractional or percentage share of the attorney's fees. The Committee expresses no opinion on whether this arrangement complies with wage and hourly claims laws.

The Committee reminds the lawyer of the strictures of RPC 5.3 and 5.5(b): it is the Committee's view that this employment arrangement creates a significant risk that the lawyer may run afoul of one or both of these rules if he is not vigilant in his supervision of the paralegal. In order to comply with RPC 5.3 and 5.5, paragraph four of the contract [providing that the paralegal is an independent contractor, not subject to the direction of the lawyer as to means or schedule] must be changed. The lawyer still needs to comply with Title 5 [of the RPCs] even if the paralegal is treated as an independent contractor.

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.