Tag Archives: Fee sharing

Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms

Posted on by
1

A financial planner, a CPA, and a lawyer walk into a bar … to form a law firm. A joke, right? Two years from now, some version of this could be happening for real in California.

A state task force headed by a former law professor is expected to produce proposals in 2019. Presently, Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 prohibits nonlawyers from acting as partners, corporate officers, or directors of a law firm. The same rule strictly regulates fee sharing and forbids nonlawyers from directing or controlling a lawyer’s professional judgment.

Why consider nonlawyer ownership?

Some view nonlawyer ownership as a means of boosting productivity, reducing costs, and improving access to justice. Others herald the benefits of outside investment and potential for greater innovation in the corporate legal market.

What we can expect from California

Your opinion may differ, but I believe the State Bar of California is ready to make this change. The purpose of the Task Force is to work out the issues.  I predict:

  • California will be the first state to allow nonlawyer ownership of a law firm.
  • Nonlawyer owners will be prohibited from controlling or directing the professional judgment of a lawyer in the course of providing professional services to a client.
  • Nonlawyer owners will be allowed to control or direct business affairs of the firm.
  • Fee sharing will be authorized, provided: (a) clients give informed consent in writing; and (b) the sharing of legal fees does not affect the lawyer’s professional judgment.
  • Receiving referral fees from nonlawyers will be permissible.
  • Disclaimers or disclosures may be required in firm advertising, marketing, engagement agreements, websites, etc.
  • Lawyers will be permitted to reveal confidential client information to nonlawyer owners and their staff in order to carry out representation.
  • Conflict of interest rules will expand to include nonlawyers as “members” of the firm – a conflict for one is a conflict for all.

Operational concerns

Anyone pondering formation of a future lawyer/nonlawyer union should think long and hard about all the issues involved in business formation. A business plan, mission statement, and written ownership agreement will be an absolute must. Thorough insurance coverage, including professional liability, will be a necessity.  Prepare to integrate office systems, record retention, and nonlawyer staff. This includes training!  If nonlawyer partners are beholden to regulatory agencies, know the ins and outs for your sake, but don’t fall into the trap of advising nonlawyer owners. Lastly, have a plan for departure. When a law partner leaves you high and dry, the repercussions aren’t pretty. But at least you can temporarily cover your partner’s legal cases. This isn’t likely to be true with a nonlawyer partner who has an area of expertise (and perhaps licensure) that you lack.

All Rights Reserved – Beverly Michaelis – 2018

Should You Take a Cue from Uber?

Posted on by
Reply

Getting your “side hustle” on is Uber’s way of suggesting that you join their team to earn extra money. Lawyers sometimes face this dilemma when first transitioning into private practice – giving up a regular paycheck is a high price to pay in exchange for the uncertainty of going solo.

For other lawyers, the practice of law is a second career.  Does this mean they are required to relinquish their first?

Not necessarily.  However, practicing on the side or in addition to another career, does raise some red flags.

Conflicts of Interest

Assuming your employer agrees to let you “moonlight” (and that’s a big assumption), you must address potential conflicts.  At first blush, you might think this concern applies only to lawyers who currently work in a law firm and wish to “work on the side” in a solo practice.  Not true!  If your other job is working as a real estate broker, mortgage broker, financial planner, psychologist, mediator, arbitrator, etc., you must also screen for conflicts.

In her article, Multidisciplinary practice: When Wearing Two Hats May Get You Burned  Helen Hierschbiel points out:

Recognizing and avoiding conflicts of interest is one of the more common concerns for lawyers who have side businesses, particularly when their clients do business with those other companies. Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2) provides that a current conflict of interest exists if “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer…” Thus, when there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s personal or other financial interests in a non-legal business will materially limit the lawyer’s responsibilities to a client, that lawyer has a conflict under RPC 1.7(a)(2).

In addition, when a lawyer’s side business is doing business with the lawyer’s client, consideration must be given to the limitations set forth in RPC 1.8(a), which provides more stringent requirements for obtaining client consent than those under RPC 1.7(b). RPC 1.8(a) provides:

A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:

1. The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;

2. The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and

3. The client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.

Note:  Learn more about this issue and other common conflict traps by attending Limiting Exposure to Conflicts on October 25, 2017.

Other Ethical Concerns

A “side practice” coupled with another job also raises potential concerns about advertising, solicitation, and fee sharing.  Here are Helen’s comments:

Advertising
“Oregon RPC 7.1 generally provides that any communication about a lawyer may not be false or misleading. Determining whether a statement is false may be simple, but assessing whether it is misleading can be more difficult. The cautious approach in making that assessment requires considering how the statement is likely to be interpreted by an unsophisticated consumer. Thus, OSB Formal Op 2005-108 concludes that a lawyer who has an active mediation practice may advertise the practice under “counselors — marriage, family, child and individual” sections of the yellow pages as long as the advertisement reflects the lawyer’s status as a lawyer offering mediation services.”

Solicitation
“Lawyers should also take care to observe the ban on in-person solicitation of legal business when providing non-legal services. The non-legal business may not be used to solicit clients with legal needs in a manner that violates RPC 7.3… (L)awyers would be wise to exercise extra caution when confronted in their non-legal business with an individual who has legal needs as well.”

Fee Sharing
“… (L)awyers should be mindful when setting up an ancillary business, not to allow non-lawyers any control or influence over their law practice.”

Employment Law and Liability Implications

Before you set up a side practice, check your employer’s policy and personnel manuals.  Some employers prohibit moonlighting altogether, others require preapproval of “outside employment activities.”  If you are a contract lawyer and a true independent contractor you should be completely free to have your own solo practice and perform contract work for other lawyers.  Be sure the principal lawyers who hire you agree.  Contact the OSB Professional Liability Fund for more information on setting up a contract practice.

Query:  If a lawyer commits malpractice in the course and scope of his or her “side practice,” could the lawyer’s primary law firm employer be held vicariously liable?  (Food for thought…. as clients have attempted to hold firms responsible for the negligence of “sole practitioners” who were leasing space in the firm’s office suite.)

Professional Liability Coverage

Lawyers engaged in the private practice of law in the State of Oregon are required to carry professional liability coverage through the Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund.  This requirement applies equally to full-time and part-time practitioners.  In other words, if you are a lawyer in private practice in Oregon (as defined in the PLF plan), it does not matter whether you provide legal services 50 hours per week or 10 hours per week – coverage is required in either case – and the cost of coverage does not vary based on the hours worked.  With that said, liability coverage in Oregon is complex.  Your best bet is to contact the Professional Liability Fund for more information.

Is it Worth it?

It may not be.  If you are not an active member of the Oregon State Bar, it will be necessary to pay bar dues.  If you intend to engage in the private practice of law and require professional liability coverage, the cost is currently $3500 per year (assuming coverage is not prorated and no discounts apply).

To assess whether a “side practice” makes sense, go through all the steps you would normally follow to set up a full-time law practice.  This includes forming an entity (or not), naming your business, choosing a space option, developing a business plan and budget, opening appropriate bank accounts, consulting with a CPA, creating (and implementing) a marketing plan, and establishing office systems.  If it sounds like your proposed “side practice” is getting more complicated by the minute, it is.  Don’t assume setting up a “side practice” is any less work than committing to the full-time private practice of law.

All Rights Reserved 2017 Beverly Michaelis
Eventbrite - Limiting Exposure to Conflicts

Avoiding eCourt – Waivers and eFiling “Lawyer Buddies”

Posted on by
2

Oregon eCourt is nothing less than revolutionary.  It is transforming how we file pleadings, meet deadlines, pay filing fees, and access court documents.  For those who were hoping to retire or transition to another career before eCourt became mandatory, the change is especially rough.

Initially, eCourt requires an investment – buying a scanner and purchasing software.  It also demands that lawyers learn new technology and adapt to changing court rules and practices.

If you are on the cusp of making a transition away from the private practice of law, but fall within the boundaries of mandatory eCourt, you may want to delegate this task – or find an eFiling lawyer buddy.  Before you do, consider the following:

Is it ethically permissible to delegate eFiling?

Short answer: Yes, qualified.  (Read the remainder of this post.)

Whether you use an eFiling lawyer buddy (contract lawyer who tends to the eFiling responsibilities of the case) or a non-lawyer staff person, you have the right to give others access to your eFiling account.

On November 19, 2014, I co-presented the OSB-PLF CLE, Oregon eCourt Update, with Daniel Parr from the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD).  At that CLE, the following questions were posed:

Q: Should an assistant be the Administrator and then the Attorney be under that same registration? Or should a legal assistant have a separate account?

A: In general this decision is up to you. Your group should register as a firm or as a unit on the system, even if you are a solo practitioner. You can choose who to assign as a firm administrator, and this can be multiple individuals. Some firms have chosen to have staff log into attorney accounts, and other firms have chosen to have the staff set up accounts directly.

Q: Are there any ethical issues with having non-attorney staff handle filings?

A: Staff are permitted to assist with this process, and non-attorney staff are already eFiling on behalf of attorneys. Obviously it is up to the attorney to review and supervise any work done by non-attorneys, and the attorney is responsible for the result.

While we did not explicitly receive a question about using a contract lawyer to handle eFilings, the result is the same – contract lawyers (eFiling lawyer buddies) are permitted to eFile on behalf of the attorney of record.  As attorney of record, it is up to you to supervise your eFiling lawyer buddy, and you are responsible for the result.  There are some other considerations, discussed below.

Is it possible to avoid eFiling entirely?

Short answer:  Yes, upon “good cause” shown, with the court’s permission.  Any lawyer can apply for a waiver of the eFiling requirement.  The waiver may apply to an existing (singular) case (UTCR 21.140(3)(a)(ii)) or all cases in a given judicial district for a specific period of time. (UTCR 21.140(3)(a)(i)).  Lawyers seek a waiver for an existing case by filing a motion; for all cases in a specific judicial district by filing a petition.

If the court grants a petition waiving the eFiling requirement in a specific judicial district, “the person obtaining the waiver must file a copy of the court’s order in each case subject to the waiver; and include the words “Exempt from eFiling per Waiver Granted [DATE]” in the caption of all documents conventionally filed during the duration of the waiver.” (UTCR 21.140(3)(d) and (e)).

Using an eFiling lawyer buddy (contract lawyer)

If you decide to use a contract lawyer to eFile your cases, follow these guidelines:

  • Put it in writing.  As with all contract lawyering arrangements, document in writing the scope of the agreement, method of compensation, and other details.  For assistance with establishing contract lawyering relationships, see the checklist and documents available from the Professional Liability Fund (PLF).  On the PLF website, select Practice Management > Forms > Contract Lawyering.
  • Assess PLF coverage implications.  If the eFiling lawyer buddy is claiming an exemption from PLF coverage, he or she cannot operate independently and “take over” eFiling responsibility.  Contract lawyers who are exempt from coverage must function under PLF guidelines.  (For details, visit the PLF website.  Select Assessments & Exemptions > Exemptions, then “Law Clerk/Supervised Attorney Not Engaged in the Private Practice of Law.”)
    Your eFiling lawyer buddy is likely to be safe if she restricts her role to that of an assistant or secretary: uploading documents at the attorney of record’s direction, following the attorney of record’s instructions in selecting a filing code, etc.  The more independent your eFiling lawyer buddy becomes, the more likely she could be viewed as acting beyond the scope of the PLF contract lawyering exemption (if in effect).  The simple workaround: your eFiling lawyer buddy (aka contract lawyer) can obtain PLF coverage for more freedom in executing her duties.
  • Understand the acceptance/rejection process. As you define the scope of the eFiling lawyer buddy’s responsibilities, consider who will be responsible for processing and responding to acceptance and rejection notices issued by Tylerhost.net.  (Oregon’s eCourt vendor.)  For example, if the attorney of record eFiles a complaint on the day the statute runs and her filing is rejected, who will refile and seek relation-back?
    It stands to reason that each time an eFiling lawyer buddy files a document for the attorney of record, she needs to be engaged and available to assist with the filing until an acceptance or rejection notice is issued. This can take up to a week.  Specific terms should be added to the written contract lawyering agreement that address the eFiling lawyer buddy’s responsibility in rejection situations.  (Note: the attorney of record can instruct her eFiling lawyer buddy to add himself as a contact in order to receive acceptance/rejection notices generated by Tylerhost.net.)
  • Understand the court notice process.  Some lawyers who are tempted to hire an eFiling lawyer buddy might be operating under the misapprehension that they can completely avoid all associated technology.  However, court notices from the Oregon Judicial Department are sent only to the “filer,” in this case, the attorney of record.  The attorney of record is responsible for reviewing and acting upon court email on a timely basis.
  • Limit account access.  By necessity, an eFiling lawyer buddy will need access to the attorney of record’s eFiling account (Odyssey) operated by Tylerhost/Tyler Technologies. But this access can (and should be) limited in writing.  The eFiling lawyer buddy should only use the attorney of record’s eFiling account as needed, and at the express direction of the attorney of record.
  • Limit credit card access.  Ideally, the attorney of record will create the eFiling (Odyssey) account and enter the credit card information needed for payment of filing fees.  If the attorney of record needs assistance, she can call the Tyler Technologies support number and/or use the “GoToAssist” feature, allowing Tyler Technologies to take control of her computer to establish the account. This limits the eFiling lawyer buddy’s access to the attorney of record’s credit card account information.  Once the credit card information is entered, the eFiling lawyer buddy simply selects the payment account to pay filing fees.  If the eFiling account is configured properly, the eFiling lawyer buddy will not be able to see the credit card information.  The attorney of record should be the “administrator.”  The eFiling lawyer buddy should be a “user.”  Support staff at Tyler Technologies can help attorneys of record set up accounts using these distinctions.
    To further protect herself, the attorney of record should dedicate a specific credit card to use in paying eFiling fees.  By establishing a credit card solely for this purpose, it will be very easy to spot whether there is any inappropriate activity on the account.  The only charges that should ever appear on attorney of record’s billing statement are filing fees payable to OJD.
  • Provide proper supervision.  Regardless of how duties are divided, the real responsibility here still falls on the attorney of record.  This scenario presumes that the eFiling lawyer buddy’s role is to act only as a technical specialist.  The attorney of record must be sure at all times that eFiling lawyer buddy is doing his job.  The eFiling lawyer buddy is not responsible for the content or accuracy of documents filed; nor is it eFiling lawyer buddy’s responsibility to monitor filing deadlines.
  • Be aware of ethics traps in determining compensation. The attorney of record can cover the cost of using the eFiling lawyer buddy out of his own pocket as a cost of doing business.  If the attorney of record intends to bill clients for eFiling lawyer buddy’s services, the clients must consent.  The attorney of record should update his client fee agreements accordingly.  (Beware the limitations of modifying a fee agreement midstream – see OSB Formal Opinion 2005-97.)
    Alternatively, the attorney of record could also barter services in exchange, but should check in with OSB General Counsel about the ethics of such an arrangement.
    If the attorney of record plans to split her fees with the eFiling lawyer buddy, she must comply with the Oregon RPCs requiring disclosure and consent of the fee split to the client.

[All Rights Reserved – 2015 – Beverly Michaelis]

Crowdfunding Your Law Practice

Posted on by
5

crowdCrowdfunding is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people, typically via the Internet.

The crowdfunding model is fueled by three types of actors: the project initiator who proposes the idea and/or project to be funded; individuals or groups who support the idea; and a moderating organization (the “platform”) that brings the parties together to launch the idea.

In 2013, the crowdfunding industry grew to be over $5.1 billion worldwide.
Source: Wikipedia.

Crowdfunding for Lawyers

Potentially, lawyers could use crowdfunding at any time – to jumpstart a law practice, expand a law practice, or bridge the gap during a downturn in business.

As you might expect, crowdfunding is most successful when used to promote a cause or new product idea rather than a service.  But it could work for lawyers if donors find the practice area and marketing pitch appealing.

The Ethics of it All

Before we get too excited about this idea, we need to do a gut check.  Simply put: is crowdfunding ethical?

A quick Internet search produces a list of posts and articles on the subject.  Here are a few:

The first result is by far the most interesting for Oregon lawyers.  In Crowdfunding: The Future Of Public-Interest Funding? author Sam Wright reports a conversation with Oregon lawyer Kellie Ann Furr who is crowdfunding a “private-public interest environmental law firm” on Indiegogo.  Furr is halfway to her fundraising goal of $7,500.  Take the time to look at her campaign and you’ll understand the appeal and her success.

But back to the ethics of it all…

In his Above the Law post about Furr, Wright tells us:

First, she sought and received an informal opinion from the Oregon State Bar on “the ethics of donation-based crowdfunding” to make sure she was on sound ethical footing. She was also careful to select “perks” for donors that would not affect her “professional independence” — in her case, the perks mostly involve volunteer time or pro bono assistance to environmental organizations. And she includes appropriate disclaimers on her campaign page.

So does this mean Oregon lawyers are off and running – free to set up crowdfunding campaigns without a second thought?  Not quite….

Crowdfunding is a “Communication Concerning a Lawyer’s Services” for Purposes of Oregon RPC 7.1

By necessity, crowdfunding involves representations about your potential or ongoing law practice. Therefore, Oregon RPC 7.1 – Communication Concerning a Lawyer’s Services – would apply to the content contained in your crowdfunding appeal:

“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”

Simply put: lawyers are responsible for ensuring that representations made about their practice are accurate.  For an excellent discussion of this topic, see OSB Formal Opinion No. 2007-180 Internet Advertising: Payment of Referral Fees and the following articles:

“Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation” – the Companion of RPC 7.1

A violation of Oregon RPC 7.1 (communication that is false or misleading) could also implicate Oregon RPC 8.4:

“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”

But lawyers can run afoul of RPC 8.4 in other ways.  As discussed below, crowdfunding campaigns often promise “rewards” or “perks” for donors.  Assuming that offering something in return for a donation is ethical, failing to deliver the “reward” or “perk” if all conditions are met would likely be construed as a violation of 8.4.

The Granddaddy of them all: Is Crowdfunding Fee Sharing with a Nonlawyer?

Lawyers and law firms are prohibited from sharing legal fees under Oregon RPC 5.4, except in limited circumstances.  This begs the question: if a donor gives a lawyer money to fund his or her law practice, does this constitute impermissible fee sharing?

Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  Where is the “fee” and how is it “shared?”  Compare the following scenarios:

  1. Lawyer and nonlawyer wish to form an LLC offering business advice.  They intend to charge potential clients a flat fee of $1,000 for their services and split the fee 50/50.  Lawyer will provide the legal advice; nonlawyer will coach clients on business strategies, financing, marketing, and the like.
    While this arrangement raises a number of issues, the question here is: does the proposed fee split violate Oregon RPC 5.4?  The answer is a straightforward: yes!
  2. A donor gives money to a lawyer to start her law practice, no strings attached – the funds are a gift, not a loan; the donor is seeking nothing in return; the lawyer is providing nothing in exchange for the donation.  There is no “fee.”  There is no “sharing.”  The donor could be Mom, Dad, a friend, or a stranger responding to a crowdfunding appeal.  It is hard to understand how this could be a violation of RPC 5.4 – but as always, I encourage readers: take your questions to the experts – OSB General Counsel’s Office.

So crowdfunding looks like a “go,” right?  Not so fast … here’s the thing about crowdfunding.  Donations aren’t generally a “gift” with no strings attached:

The Crowdfunding Centre’s May 2014 report identified the existence of two primary types of crowdfunding:

Rewards crowdfunding: entrepreneurs pre-sell a product or service to launch a business concept without incurring debt or sacrificing equity/shares.
Equity crowdfunding: the backer receives shares of a company, usually in its early stages, in exchange for the money pledged. The company’s success is determined by how successfully it can demonstrate its viability.

Source: Wikipedia.

Permitting donors to take an equity interest in your law firm is clearly impermissible under RPC 5.4.  A rewards approach could quickly go awry if the lawyer violated RPC 7.1, 8.4, or other applicable rules.  Remember Kellie Ann Furr?  Her Indiegogo campaign offers four different “perks” or rewards for donors:  volunteer time, pro bono work, or a one-hour consultation.  She carefully limits the one-hour consultation to Oregon residents only and includes a disclaimer that donating to her campaign does not create an attorney-client relationship. Is this sufficient?  At the risk of repeating myself: take this question to the experts – OSB General Counsel’s Office.

Funding a Law Practice Is Only Part of the Picture: Student Loans, Litigation, and Securities Regulation

Crowdfunding raises issues in other areas as well.  Check out these posts:

Learn More

If you want to learn more about crowdfunding, read the following:

Next, get ethics advice – from independent ethics counsel with whom you form an attorney-client relationship or OSB General Counsel’s Office.  The General Counsel’s Office can help you identify applicable rules, point out relevant formal ethics opinions and other resource material, and give you a reaction to your ethics question – they are always a good place to start.

All Rights Reserved [2015] Beverly Michaelis

Postscript:

In addition to the above, practitioners should also consult with a tax lawyer or CPA. Money raised via crowdfunding will likely be considered taxable income. Check out these guidelines, available from PayPal. A word of caution: as noted here, failure to meet PayPal’s threshold for purposes of generating a 1099 doesn’t mean you aren’t obligated to report the income.

Can I Practice “On the Side?”

Posted on by
1

Lawyers sometimes ask if they can start a law practice “on the side” while maintaining their current position.  This question raises several red flags.

Conflicts of Interest

Assuming your employer agrees to let you “moonlight” (and that’s a big assumption), you must address potential conflicts.  At first blush, you might think this concern applies only to lawyers who currently work in a law firm and wish to “work on the side” in a solo practice.  Not true!  If your other job is working as a real estate broker, mortgage broker, financial planner, psychologist, mediator, arbitrator, etc., you must also screen for conflicts.

In her article, Multidisciplinary practice: When Wearing Two Hats May Get You Burned  OSB General Counsel Helen Hierschbiel points out:

Recognizing and avoiding conflicts of interest is one of the more common concerns for lawyers who have side businesses, particularly when their clients do business with those other companies. Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2) provides that a current conflict of interest exists if “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer…” Thus, when there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s personal or other financial interests in a non-legal business will materially limit the lawyer’s responsibilities to a client, that lawyer has a conflict under RPC 1.7(a)(2).

In addition, when a lawyer’s side business is doing business with the lawyer’s client, consideration must be given to the limitations set forth in RPC 1.8(a), which provides more stringent requirements for obtaining client consent than those under RPC 1.7(b). RPC 1.8(a) provides:

A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:

1. The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;

2. The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and

3. The client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.

Other Ethical Concerns

A “side practice” coupled with another job also raises potential concerns about advertising, solicitation, and fee sharing.  Here are Helen’s comments:

Advertising
“Oregon RPC 7.1 generally provides that any communication about a lawyer may not be false or misleading. Determining whether a statement is false may be simple, but assessing whether it is misleading can be more difficult. The cautious approach in making that assessment requires considering how the statement is likely to be interpreted by an unsophisticated consumer. Thus, OSB Formal Op 2005-108 concludes that a lawyer who has an active mediation practice may advertise the practice under “counselors — marriage, family, child and individual” sections of the yellow pages as long as the advertisement reflects the lawyer’s status as a lawyer offering mediation services.”

Solicitation
“Lawyers should also take care to observe the ban on in-person solicitation of legal business when providing non-legal services. The non-legal business may not be used to solicit clients with legal needs in a manner that violates RPC 7.3… (L)awyers would be wise to exercise extra caution when confronted in their non-legal business with an individual who has legal needs as well.”

Fee Sharing
“… (L)awyers should be mindful when setting up an ancillary business, not to allow non-lawyers any control or influence over their law practice.”

Employment Law and Liability Implications

Before you set up a side practice, check your employer’s policy and personnel manuals.  Some employers prohibit moonlighting altogether, others require preapproval of “outside employment activities.”  If you are a contract lawyer and a true independent contractor you should be completely free to have your own solo practice and perform contract work for other lawyers.  Be sure the principal lawyers who hire you agree.  Review the Practical Contract Lawyering CLE on the PLF Web site > Programs on CD/DVD for more information on setting up a contract practice.  Query:  If a lawyer commits malpractice in the course and scope of his or her “side practice,” could the lawyer’s primary law firm employer be held vicariously liable?  (Food for thought…. as clients have attempted to hold firms responsible for the negligence of “sole practitioners” who were leasing space in the firm’s office suite.)

Professional Liability Coverage

Lawyers engaged in the private practice of law in the State of Oregon are required to carry professional liability coverage through the Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund.  This requirement applies equally to full-time and part-time practitioners.  In other words, if you are a lawyer in private practice in Oregon (as defined in the PLF plan), it does not matter whether you provide legal services 50 hours per week or 10 hours per week – coverage is required in either case – and the cost of coverage does not vary based on the hours worked.  With that said, liability coverage in Oregon is complex.  Your best bet is to contact our coverage experts Jeff Crawford or Emilee Preble for more information.

Is it Worth it?

It may not be.  If you are not an active member of the Oregon State Bar, it will be necessary to pay bar dues.  If you intend to engage in the private practice of law and require professional liability coverage, the cost is $3500 per year (assuming coverage is not prorated and no discounts apply).  To assess whether a “side practice” makes sense, go through all the steps you would normally follow to set up a full-time law practice.  This includes forming an entity (or not), naming your business, choosing a space option, developing a business plan and budget, opening appropriate bank accounts, consulting with a CPA, creating (and implementing) a marketing plan, and establishing office systems.  If it sounds like your proposed “side practice” is getting more complicated by the minute, it is.  Don’t assume setting up a “side practice” is any less work than committing to the full-time private practice of law.

Now What?

Oregon lawyers are welcome to contact the practice management advisors at the PLF any time with questions about “side practice” or related issues.  If you are outside Oregon, follow this link to find a practice management advisor in your state.

Copyright 2012 Beverly Michaelis