伦理意见286

临时转介费

*[注:请参阅第286号意见是如何受到D.C. 职业行为准则 that became effective on February 1, 2007]

A payment by a 澳博app to another person for the referral of legal business, 这取决于澳博app从被推荐的法律业务收取的费用，并与这些费用的金额挂钩, 构成分担法律费用. Such sharing can only be done with another 澳博app, and only if certain client disclosure and other conditions are satisfied.

适用的规则

• 规则1.5(e) (Restrictions on Division of 费用 Between Lawyers Not In the Same Firm)
• 规则5.4(a) (Lawyer may not Share Legal 费用 with a Non澳博app)
• 规则7.1(b)(5)(澳博app可就法律业务的介绍向中介人支付对价)

调查

长期以来，哥伦比亚特区的法律道德规则一直限制澳博app之间分担费用, 禁止与非澳博app分担法律费用，禁止澳博app向他人提供有价值的法律服务. Under DR 2-107 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, 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, 法律费用不能与非澳博app分享(除非有几个非常有限的例外，如已故澳博app的遗产和澳博app事务所的退休计划)。. 根据DR 2-103(C), 为法律业务的介绍而向他人支付的费用，只能用于广告或澳博app介绍服务的费用.

大多数这些限制在哥伦比亚特区职业行为规则(“规则”)中继续存在。, 1991年生效. 规则1.5(e)规定不在同一澳博app事务所工作的澳博app之间可分摊法律费用的条件, 和规则5.4(a) generally prohibits the sharing of legal fees with non澳博apps. Regarding payments to others for the referral of legal business, the 规则 liberalized some of the restrictions of the former Code, 因为他们现在允许澳博app为将业务介绍给澳博app的人支付对价, subject to certain disclosure obligations to the client. 这项规定载于细则7.1(b)(5), is unique to the District of Columbia.¹

在这个调查中, 我们将讨论一个涉及上述每条规则的问题——是否向澳博app或非澳博app支付法律业务的介绍费, 哪项付款是有条件的, 并与, the 澳博app’s receipt of revenue from the referred matter, is a sharing of legal fees governed by 规则 5.4(a)和1.5(e) (and therefore permitted only between 澳博apps), or is a 规则7.1(b)(5) referral fee (and therefore payable to anyone). We addressed contingent referral fees in an earlier Opinion (No. 253), where we noted a "tension" between the fee-sharing prohibition of 规则5.4(a) and the referral fee authorization of 规则7.1(b)(5). 在那次询问中, 本委员会遇到的情况是，一家澳博app事务所提议向一家保险公司支付转介给该公司的客户的费用. 这笔款项——预先确定的特定金额——将在案件解决或判决时到期.

意见书253, 我们的结论是，根据《澳博app》，这样的安排是允许的. The apparent tension or conflict between the fee-sharing prohibition of 规则5.4 and the referral fee authorization of 规则7.1(b)(5) was resolved in the Committee’s observation that 规则7.1(b)(5):

was intended to be a narrow exception to 规则5.4. 因此，只有那些向其客户披露规则7所要求的信息的澳博app.1(b)(5)可以逃避规则5.4’s general ban against the sharing of legal fees with non澳博apps.

After careful consideration of Opinion No. 第253条，委员会决定发表本意见以澄清规则7的适用范围.1(b)(5) and the status of contingent referral fees under the 规则.

讨论

决定偶然转介付款是否合法的核心因素是，它们是否为转介合法业务而支付给中介机构的款项(规则7允许).1(b)(5)向任何收件人)或法律费用的分割或共享(根据规则5合法).4(a) only if between 澳博apps and subject to the requirements of 规则1.5(e) if between 澳博apps practicing in different firms).

A non-contingent payment for the referral of legal business, i.e., one that is paid regardless of the success or outcome of the representation, 是不是有法律费用的划分. 此类支付 are simply part of a 澳博app’s marketing expenses, payable whether or not they produce revenue for the 澳博app. 此类支付, 曾经在哥伦比亚特区被禁止(在大多数其他司法管辖区仍然被禁止), 是合法的吗.1(b)(5) of the District of Columbia 职业行为准则. 我们认为，这种非或有付款——例如，每向澳博app介绍一个潜在客户，就给一个人支付现金或礼品券——是该规则所考虑的.² 因为它们就像是澳博app的一般资金中用于广告或其他营销费用的款项, and not from the proceeds of a particular representation, 这样的付款(无论支付给澳博app还是非澳博app)并不违反规则1.5(e)和5.4(a) because they do not involve a division or sharing of legal fees.³

另一方面, the payment of a contingent referral fee, tied to the amount of the 澳博app’s fees or recovery on behalf of the client, is not a marketing expense unconnected to the realization of income; rather, 这更像是一种委托, which directly reduces the fee income of the 澳博app making the payment. 付这笔钱的澳博app是, 实际上, 将特定法律代理的部分收益支付给另一个人.

如此看来, such a payment is a form of fee sharing, 除了澳博app之间和规则1的要求外，哪些是禁止的.满足5(e). 佛罗里达州澳博app职业道德委员会的意见89-4直接支持了这一结论(澳博app事务所向营销代理支付的佣金与从推荐业务中获得的法律费用挂钩，是一种不道德的费用分配)。, 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).

We conclude, therefore, that a payment to a non澳博app 为业务推荐, tied to the amount of revenue received by the 澳博app from the referred business, 是不被允许的. 如果支付给 澳博app, the payment must conform to the requirements of 规则1.5(e).

我们不相信规则7.1(b)(5)是长期禁止与非澳博app分担法律费用的例外, because it does not concern the sharing of legal fees. The Rule did mark a departure from prior ethics law in this jurisdiction, 但只在其授权的某些支付给他人的法律业务转介给澳博app. 当此类付款不以澳博app收取费用收入为条件或与之挂钩时, 他们不是分担法律费用. 根据对规则7的这种看法.1(b)(5), there is no tension with 规则5.4，因为我们不将前者解释为适用于对非澳博app的偶然推荐付款.

Thus, the conclusion (discussed above) and much of the discussion of Opinion No. 253个未受干扰. We only reach that conclusion by the reasoning of this Opinion, i.e.，即支付一笔固定金额的转诊费不是分担法律费用.

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), are more akin to the District of Columbia’s former DR 2-103(C), 只允许支付广告和澳博app推荐服务会员资格.
2. 规则7 (b)(5)小节.哥伦比亚特区澳博app公会理事会在《澳博app》委员会的建议中增加了1条. 《美国澳博app协会职业行为示范规则》中没有类似的规定. 事实上，模型规则7.第2条(未在哥伦比亚特区采用)一般禁止向向澳博app介绍法律业务的人支付任何有价值的东西.
3. 在某些情况下, the referral fee could be passed on the to the client, 根据第7条所规定的披露必须包括在内的情况.1(b)(5).