伦理意见286

临时转介费

* [NOTE: See how Opinion 286 has been substantively affected by the amendments to the D.C. 2007年2月1日生效的《澳博app下载网》

澳博app为介绍法律业务而付给他人的报酬, which is contingent on the 澳博app’s receipt of fees from the referred legal business and is tied to the amount of those fees, 构成分担法律费用. 这样的分享只能由另一位澳博app来完成, 只有在满足某些客户信息披露和其他条件的情况下.

适用的规则

• 规则1.5(e)(非同一澳博app事务所澳博app之间分摊费用的限制)
• 规则5.4(a)(澳博app不得与非澳博app分担法律费用)
• 规则7.1(b)(5) (Consideration May Be Paid by a Lawyer to an Intermediary for the Referral of Legal Business)

调查

Legal ethics rules in the District of Columbia have long contained restrictions on the sharing of fees by one 澳博app with another 澳博app, and prohibitions on the sharing of legal fees with non澳博apps and on the payment by a 澳博app of something of value to another person for the referral of legal work. 根据前《澳博app下载网》第2-107条, a division of fees between 澳博apps not in the same firm could only be made in proportion to the services performed and responsibility assumed by each 澳博app; under DR 3-102, legal fees could not be shared with non澳博apps (except under one of several very narrow exceptions concerning the estate of a deceased 澳博app and law firm retirement plans). 根据DR 2-103(C), payments to others for the referral of legal business could only be made if for advertising or for the fees of a 澳博app referral service.

Most of these restrictions continue in the District of Columbia 职业行为准则 (“the 规则”), 1991年生效. 规则1.5(e) establishes conditions under which 澳博apps not in the same firm may divide legal fees between themselves, 和规则5.4(a)一般禁止与非澳博app分担法律费用. 关于付款给他人进行合法业务的介绍, 《澳博app》放宽了前《澳博app》的一些限制, as they now permit a 澳博app to pay consideration to a person 为业务推荐 to the 澳博app, 根据对客户的某些披露义务. 这项规定载于细则7.第1(b)(5)条是哥伦比亚特区所独有的.¹

在这个调查中, we address a question which touches each of these 规则—whether a payment to a 澳博app or non澳博app for the referral of legal business, 哪项付款是有条件的, 并与, 澳博app从所提事项中收到的收入, 法律费用的分担是否受规则5的约束.4(a)和1.第5(e)条(因此只能在澳博app之间使用)，或者是第7条.(b)(5)介绍费(因此应支付给任何人). 我们在较早的一份意见. 253)，其中我们注意到第5条规则的费用分摊禁令之间的“紧张关系”.第4(a)条和第7条的推荐费授权.1(b)(5). 在那次询问中, this Committee was presented with a situation in which a law firm proposed to pay an insurance company for clients referred to the firm. The payment—a pre-determined specified sum—would be due on settlement or judgment in the case.

意见书253, we concluded that such an arrangement was permissible under the 职业行为准则. 规则5的费用分摊禁令之间明显的紧张或冲突.第四条和第七条的推荐费授权.根据委员会的意见，第1(b)(5)条已得到解决.1(b)(5):

是规则5的一个狭义例外吗.4. Therefore, only those 澳博apps who disclose to their clients the information required under 规则7.1(b)(5)可以逃避规则5.4 .普遍禁止与非澳博app分享法律费用.

在仔细考虑了第一号意见后. 253, the Committee has decided to issue this Opinion to clarify the reach of 规则7.1(b)(5)和《澳博app》规定的临时转诊费的状况.

讨论

The central factor that determines the legality of contingent referral payments is whether they are payments to an intermediary for the referral of legal business (permitted under 规则7.1(b)(5) to any recipient) or the division or sharing of a legal fee (lawful under 规则5.(a)仅在澳博app之间并符合规则1的要求时进行.5(e)在不同事务所执业的澳博app之间。.

为介绍合法业务而支付的无条件报酬; i.e., 不论代理的成功与否或结果如何都能获得报酬的人, 是不是有法律费用的划分. 这些费用只是澳博app营销费用的一部分, 无论他们是否为澳博app创造收入，都要支付. 此类支付, once prohibited in the District of Columbia (and still prohibited in most other jurisdictions), 是合法的吗.《澳博app》第1(b)(5)条. We believe that such non-contingent payments—such as a cash payment or gift certificate given to a person for each potential client referred to the 澳博app—are the ones contemplated by that Rule.² Because they are like payments from the general funds of the 澳博app for advertising or other marketing expenses, 而不是来自某一特定陈述的收益, such payments (whether made to a 澳博app or non澳博app) do not run afoul of 规则 1.5(e)和5.4(a)因为它们不涉及法律费用的分割或分担.³

另一方面, 临时转诊费的支付, 与澳博app费或代表客户的追偿金额挂钩, is not a marketing expense unconnected to the realization of income; rather, 这更像是一种委托, 这直接减少了澳博app的费用收入. 付这笔钱的澳博app是, 实际上, paying some of the proceeds of a specific legal representation to another person.

如此看来, 这种付款是一种费用分摊的形式, which is prohibited except as between 澳博apps and except as the requirements of 规则1.满足5(e). There is direct support for this conclusion in Florida 酒吧 Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 89-4 (a commission paid by a law firm to a marketing agent tied to legal fees derived from referred business is an unethical division of fees), 间接支持 儿子v. 马古利乌斯，马利奥斯，戴维斯，莱德 & 可以喝, 709 A. 2d 112 (Md). 1998); Trotter v. 纳尔逊, 684 N.E. 2d 1150. 1997); 在Re Drakulich, 908 P. 2d 709(内华达州. 1995); and 德克萨斯州澳博app协会诉. 镀锡, 875 S.W. 2d 403 (Tex). 应用程序. 1994).

因此，我们得出结论，支付给a non澳博app 为业务推荐, 与澳博app从被推荐的业务中获得的收入数额挂钩, 是不被允许的. 如果支付给 澳博app，付款必须符合规则1的要求.5(e).

我们不相信规则7.1(b)(5) is an exception to the long-standing prohibition of the sharing of legal fees with non澳博apps, 因为它不涉及法律费用的分担. 该规则确实标志着该司法管辖区先前的道德法的背离, but only in its authorization of certain payments to others for the referral of legal business to a 澳博app. When such payments are not contingent on 并与 the receipt of fee revenue by the 澳博app, 他们不是分担法律费用. 根据对规则7的这种看法.1(b)(5)，与规则5没有冲突.4, as we do not interpret the former to apply to contingent referral payments to non澳博apps.

因此，结论(上文讨论过)和第1号意见的大部分讨论. 253个未受干扰. 我们只有通过本意见的推理才能得出这一结论， i.e., that the payment of a fixed sum as a referral fee is not the sharing of a legal fee.

查询号. 96-5-16和97-6-28
通过:1998年11月17日

1. ABA模型规则，见规则7.2(c), 更类似于哥伦比亚特区以前的DR 2-103(C), permitting only payments for advertisements and 澳博app referral service membership.
2. 规则7 (b)(5)小节.1 was added by the 董事会 of Governors of the District of Columbia 酒吧 to the recommendations of the Model 职业行为准则 Committee. No similar provision was contained in the ABA Model 职业行为准则. 事实上，模型规则7.2 (not adopted in the District of Columbia) generally prohibits the payment of anything of value to a person for referring legal business to a 澳博app.
3. 在某些情况下, 推荐费可以直接转给客户, a circumstance which would have to be included in the required disclosure under 规则7.1(b)(5).