Vermont’s Rules of Professional Conduct do not allow straight referral fees.
If you didn’t know that, don’t worry, you’re not alone.
About a year ago, I blogged on referral fees. The post is HERE. A quick summary:
- Scenario: Client asks Lawyer for help in an area that Lawyer doesn’t practice. Lawyer refers Client to Attorney. Lawyer and Attorney do not work in the same firm. Lawyer wants to be paid for the referral. Under what circumstances, if any, can Attorney ethically pay Lawyer for the referral?
- Conclusion: Rule 1.5(e) is Vermont’s rule on dividing fees between lawyers who do not work together. The rule authorizes a division of fees Lawyer and Attorney if:
- the division is in proportion to the services performed by both Lawyer & Attorney, or, both Lawyer & Attorney assume joint responsibility for the representation;
- Client agrees to the arrangement, including the share that both Lawyer and Attorney will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and
- the total fee is reasonable.
The original post goes into much more detail.
The question that often arises is “what does joint responsibility for the representation mean?” Comment  to Rule 1.5(e) makes it clear that lawyers can divide fees based on “the proportion of services they render or if each lawyer assumes responsibility for the representation as a whole.” It goes on to indicate that “[j]oint responsibility for the representation entails financial and ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were associated in a partnership.” (emphasis added).
In April, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 474. The opinion reaches the same conclusion as my original post. It also endeavors to shed some light on “joint responsibility for the representation.” Finally, the ABA opinion reminds us that the referring lawyer is subject to the conflict rules and must avoid conflicts of interest as if representing the client.
The ABA Journal summarized Formal Opinion 474 here.