Fee sharing Archives - Legal Ethics Advisor

Arizona Eliminates Rule 5.4 and Approves Fee-Sharing Among Lawyers and Non-Lawyers

by Claire Chatellier in fee sharing with non lawyers. Posted September 8, 2020

Arizona approved reaching access-to-justice reforms that allow non-lawyer ownership of a law firms and establish new fee-sharing guidelines.

Utah Supreme Court Passes Historic Decision Hoping to Tackle the Access-to-Justice Crisis in America

by Alec Withee in Access to Justice. Posted September 1, 2020

In a historic decision, the Utah Supreme Court approved a number of reforms in an effort to tackle the access-to-justice crisis that has persisted in America for decades.

Impermissible Fee-Sharing? Missouri District Court Deems Firm to be Unconventional, But Compliant

by Esther Ponce de Leon in Attorney Fees, Fee-Sharing. Posted May 7, 2020

A “virtual” law firm got a win when the U.S, District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that the firm, though unconventional, did not violate fee-sharing prohibitions.

[…] of a non-binding advisory opinion, as has been the case with other jurisdictions such as, Florida, San Francisco, and Delaware, it is important to note that Ohio went a step further and amended its rule regarding […]

Remote Lawyering: New Jersey and Ohio On Board - Legal Ethics Advisor on Remote Work: San Francisco Bar Association Advice in Ethics Opinion 2021-1
Not all jurisdictions have adopted the Model Rule version of the choice of law rule; seems like there might be a different result in at least some of those states. See, e.g., NY RPC 8.5(b)(2)(i) ("If the lawyer is licensed to practice only in this state, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of this state").

Art Lachman on ABA Opinion 499 Green Lights Lawyers’ Passive Investment in Firms with NonLawyer Ownership

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30