On Tuesday, the ABA`s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released Formal Opinion 487, which deals with fee splitting agreements when a lawyer replaces the first lawyer in a separate firm, instead of cooperating in a case of contingency costs. Formal Notice 487 states that a lawyer who is a entitled on an imprevising tax issue must inform the client in writing that a portion of the fees collected may be paid to the original legal aid. The notice addresses a common misunderstanding of the standard rules for succession relationships in potential pricing agreements and successor obligations. If the successor lawyer is to negotiate fees with the original lawyer on behalf of the client, the successor lawyer must advise and obtain a waiver from the client in order to avoid a personal conflict of interest in accordance with Rule 1.7 on the allocation of funds. It is agreed that the lawyer will share the legal costs in this case with the lawyer who will be compensated for the costs that the lawyer will normally earn under this agreement. Associated Lawyer has agreed to take joint responsibility for the case. Associated Lawyer receives 50% of legal fees. Total costs to the customer are not increased. The client waives any solicitor-client privilege and any obligation of confidentiality regarding all confidential client information that the lawyer must share with Associated Lawyer to perform the representation. If the services of the affiliated lawyer contribute to the competent and ethical representation of the client, you should take this into account. You will become a better lawyer faster if you work with an experienced lawyer to help you. Yes, you have to give up some of your expenses, but it will be a good investment in your professional development and the case of your client. In addition, a better result means more money in the customer`s pocket.
(1) the service is proportional to the services provided by each lawyer or lawyer assumes co-responsibility for representation; Rule 1.2 of the Professional Code states that “the lawyer must not deal with a matter of law that that lawyer knows or should know that he or she is not competent without dealing with a lawyer in charge of handling the case.” It also finds that the right holder and the previous lawyer are not bound by the royalty allocation guidelines set out in Rule 1.5 (e), as they relate to situations in which two different corporate lawyers are handling a case at the same time. Quoted from his 2009 opinion according to the previous code, the court stated “he falls ill accused… for “ethical” reasons, to avoid the obligations of an agreement to which it is free and which it has benefited from. The court stated that, after taking advantage, counsel could not use “ethical rules like a sword” to invalidate the royalty-sharing agreement.