Concerns about office-sharing arrangements addressed in new ABA ethics opinion
Image from Shutterstock.
Attorneys can engage in office-sharing arrangements with other lawyers but must take care to ensure they comply with legal ethics rules. For example, attorneys must take into consideration rules related to client confidentiality, communication with clients and the avoidance of conflict.
Confidentiality
Formal Opinion 507, released July 12 by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, first addresses the possible confidentiality concerns caused by lawyers in office-sharing arrangements.
An ABA press release is here.
“Maintaining the confidentiality of client information is therefore imperative for lawyers in an office sharing arrangement,” the opinion reads.
Everyone should avoid discussing cases in common areas, and lawyers may need to have separate lobby or waiting areas to ensure confidentiality. Other possible measures include installing privacy screens on computers, locking down computers when not in use and providing training to staff about ensuring confidentiality.
Attorneys who office share may have the same support staff, but this requires extra vigilance and monitoring of staff to maintain confidentiality.
Communication with clients
Lawyers must ensure that they communicate accurately to the public about office-sharing arrangements. Under Model Rule 7.1, lawyers must not engage in false or misleading communications to clients by implying that they are in the same firm with attorneys with whom they only share office space. Lawyers in these situations also should use separate business cards, letterhead, and be listed separately in directories. The opinion also notes that it’s “desirable’ for lawyers to have separate telephone lines.
Conflict of interest considerations
Lawyers also must take particular care in office-sharing arrangements to consider possible conflicts of interests.
“Under the Model Rules, office sharing lawyers are not automatically treated as a single law firm for conflicts of interest purposes,” the opinion reads. “This determination will depend on the facts and circumstances of each arrangement.” For example, if lawyers regularly consult with other lawyers on client matters or share staff, then they could be treated as a single association for conflict purposes.
Lawyers who share office space may represent clients with adverse interests but the Model Rules may require that the lawyers obtain each clients’ informed consent confirmed in writing. “In addition, any staff shared by the lawyers should not possess or otherwise have access to information from both adverse clients,” the opinion reads.
The opinion also discusses consultations between office sharing lawyers. If lawyers do engage in such consultations, they need to use hypothetical facts to protect clients’ interests. Furthermore, “office sharing lawyers should conduct a conflict check prior to any informal consultation or collaboration.”
The opinion concludes that lawyers ethically may share office space with other lawyers but such lawyers “must fully consider and comply with their applicable ethical responsibilities, including confidentiality, conflicts of interest, supervision, and communications concerning a lawyer’s services.”
