According to ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.5 (e), two lawyers from different companies must apportion a fee if they are distributed in relation to the services provided by each lawyer, unless the lawyers have agreed, with the client`s written consent, to take over the representation. Lawyers who receive complaints from other California lawyers have an ethical right to pay the referring lawyer a percentage of the fees collected in exchange for the transfer. Under Rule 2-200, the division of a client fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm is ethically permissible if the client accepts the agreement after full written disclosure of the terms of the split. The distribution of fees should not increase the total amount of fees charged to the customer and the overall tax may not be unacceptable. There appear to be four main patterns of such relationships, which, according to the Committee, are well referred to as «legal aid» (or one of its variants). Answer: Yes. The traditional rule is that only one lawyer can be a lawyer. The formal opinion of ABA 90-357 resolved the issue in these terms: the Committee`s previous opinions held that a lawyer could not be advised at the same time as several companies, because the necessary «close, regular, personal relationship» cannot be done in the plural. … It is not clear that a lawyer is in a position to have a «close, regular, personal relationship» with more than two lawyers or law firms.

A lawyer can certainly have an intimate, regular, personal relationship with more than two clients; and the commission sees no reason why this cannot be the case for more than two law firms. There is, to be sure, a point where the number of relationships would be too large for one of them to have the necessary qualities of proximity and regularity, and that number may not be much more than two, but the test of control are «close and regular» relations, not a number. While the general rule is that a lawyer is not responsible for the company`s fault, legal advisors who are retired partners risk liability. In certain circumstances, customers may reasonably assume that the retired partner retains his or her former status with the company and is thus misled about the presentation. This is particularly the case where the lawyer was a partner of the name and the company did not change its name after the partner left. The division of law firms risks creating a de facto partnership that bears alternate liability for misconduct committed by other lawyers as stipulated in the partnership. Both advice relationships are correct, but they must be carefully or at risk. The rules of ABA and California are clear: it is permissible to maintain several «counsel» positions at the same time. However, as explained below, the number of companies with which a lawyer may have a Von Counsel relationship may be practically limited due to conflict of interest rules. What constitutes a «significant change» for disclosure purposes depends on the individual case and the circumstances. The 1994-138 copRAC notice lists examples of factors relevant to determining whether a company is required to disclose the liberal relationship, including: (i) whether the responsibility for client supervision is changed; (ii) whether the new lawyer will perform an essential part or aspect of the work; or (iii) if staffing has been changed from what was specifically presented or agreed with the client.