I have been casting about for a new career, and I have an idea: I would like to set up a legal services clinic, wherein I would hire lawyers (new law grads are a dime a dozen), and provide office spaces, FAX, computers, telephones, etc. In this sense, it would be like a “REMAX” real estate franchise-each lawyer would be an independent business, but would be affliated under my firm. Would such an arrangement violate any laws? I would like to be able to advertise as the “Law Offices of xxxxx”, but since I am not a lawyer, would I be treading on anybodies toes if I did this?
Sounds like a great idea-low cost lawyering, and I get a cut of the profits!
We covered this before the crash, but the thread may have been lost. The short answer is “No.”
IANAL (but Mrs MinkMan is.) The lawyers code of ethics has strict rules that prohibit lawyers from sharing their fees with non-lawyers. This rules out your idea.
Advertising as “Law Offices of xxxxx”, where xxxxx is replaced by the real name of a non-lawyer, would also be a potential problem. Someone reading that name might conclude that you are a lawyer, and falsely representing that you’re a lawyer can get you prosecuted under most states’ laws for practicing without a license.
And since lawyers’ ethical rules generally prohibit false advertising, any lawyer who practiced under your proposed name could face disciplinary action.
(I am a lawyer, but this post is not intended as legal advice. This post is for educational and informational purposes only. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between myself and anyone who reads this. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.)
The regulation of non-lawyers varies wildly by jurisdiction. I believe there may be some places where non-lawyers can offer certain very basic “legal” services and use the word “legal” in their business name. But the consequences of error can be pretty catastrophic.
So the sad moral is: in order to find out if your proposed business is lawful in your state, you’ll have to consult an attorney admitted there.
Oxy, Esq., admitted only in New York and no longer in active practice.
I love it. It is unethical for lawyers to let anyone else get their grubby little hands on the money.
The problem with permitting non-lawyers to practice law is similar in scope to peritting unlicensed persons to practice medicine. The practice of law is complex and the results of an ill-prepared person’s foray into the field can have devastating and long-lasting effects on the erstwhile clients who relied on the advice proffered by the non-lawyer.
The issue, gazpacho, is not whose “grubby little hands” get the “money”. The issue is protecting the public from untrained would-be practioners, unqualified to render competent legal advice, preying on those who seek a bargain.
Yes, lawyers cost money. The reason lawyers cost money is that lawyers are trained professionals, and rightfully expect compensation commensurate with that training. Many lawyers donate some of their time to community outreach; many choose Legal Aid or Public Defender work – not a bastion of high pay – in an effort to ensure that needy persons have access to legal services.
Now, why prohibit a fee-sharing arrangement with a non-lawyer, as discussed in the OP? The rationale is that placing a non-lawyer in a position of decision-making authority over a lawyer, as any fee-sharing arrangement has the danger of becoming, risks compromising the ethical standards to which the lawyer must adhere, but by which the non-lawyer is not bound.
This is GQ, a home for factual answers to questions susceptible to factual answering. There is no room for commentary about “grubby hands”, especially when it’s a comment that appears to be based on lawyer-bashing generalities, rather than any cogent understanding of the circumstances.
- Rick
I don’t think anybody actually read my original post. What I propose is to OFFER office space and shared services to LICENSED lawyers; much like a large department store will sublet retail space to another firm. I would therefore be the head of an association-and not be engaged in the practice of law at all. my question is: is this legal? I view it as an HMO for lawyers.
You can be a landlord to lawyers. You can lease office equipment to lawyers.
If you aren’t a lawyer, you shouldn’t advertise your space as The Law Offices of ralph124c.
Your dream of heading an association of lawyers can’t work unless you are a lawyer.
The part of your OP that make your plans impossible is this:
If you are getting a “cut of the profits” then what you’re proposing is sharing fee’s with the lawyers in your “association” and that’s not allowed. If what you make depends on how much they make, then you are fee-sharing. There are also rules about whose name can be on the name of the firm. IIRC you have to be a living, active partner (and thus a lawyer) of the firm or be a dead former partner. Live non-active, retired or former partners name’s aren’t allowed.
But then again, IANAL
<hijack>
The problem with permitting non-doctors to practice medicine is similar in scope to peritting unlicensed persons to practice law. The practice of medicine is complex and the results of an ill-prepared person’s foray into the field can have devastating and long-lasting effects on the erstwhile patients who relied on the medical decisions proffered by the non-doctor.
The issue, …, is not whose “grubby little hands” get the “money”. The issue is protecting the public from untrained would-be practioners, unqualified to render competent medical advice, preying on those who seek a bargain.
Yes, doctors cost money. The reason doctors cost money is that doctors are trained professionals, and rightfully expect compensation commensurate with that training. Many doctors donate some of their time to community outreach; many choose Indigent Care or international charity work – not a bastion of high pay – in an effort to ensure that needy persons have access to medical services.
Now, why prohibit a fee-sharing arrangement with a non-doctor, as discussed in the OP? The rationale is that placing a non-doctor in a position of decision-making authority over a doctor, as any fee-sharing arrangement has the danger of becoming, risks compromising the ethical standards to which the doctor must adhere, but by which the non-doctor is not bound.
</hijack>
Which is why, IMHO, people hate HMOs telling the doctors what care they may and may not provide, else be dropped and/or penalized. Visualize the Law-HMO pressuring its member lawyers to keep the quick pleas and settlements rate high because it’s not cost effective to run into actual court time for the ‘basic coverage’ defendant.
-AmbushBug
It’s a good thing that SDMB posts don’t earn esteem, AmbushBug, or I’d have to demote you for that one.
But your point is well taken - and, if I may say, brilliantly written, too. 
The problems that HMOs face are precisely why the rules against UPL are crafted as they are – and frankly, something that the medical community should consider.
- Rick
Bricker,
Almost every other profession allows equity interest in the business to be owned by just about anybody. Engineering consultantancy firms for example. Expert advice is being sought in a way that I find extremely similar to legal advice and some how they manage to evade the ethical traps that lawyers somehow cannot. I stand by my assertion the reason for this is so lawyers don’t have to share fees not for some ethical reason.
And that, of course, would be a great subject for a Great Debate.
As opposed to a General Question.
Thank you.