规则 of Professional Conduct

规则5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer

  (a)澳博app或澳博app事务所不得与非澳博app分担法律费用，除非:
      (一)澳博app与澳博app事务所的协议, 合作伙伴, or associate may provide for the payment of money, 在澳博app死后一段合理的时间内, 澳博app的遗产或者指定的一人以上;
      (2) A lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer. A lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, 禁用, or disappeared lawyer may, pursuant to the provisions of 规则1.向遗产管理人或该澳博app的其他代表支付约定的购买价款.
      (3)澳博app或澳博app事务所可以将非澳博app雇员纳入薪酬或退休计划, 即使该计划全部或部分基于利润分享安排;
      (4) Sharing of fees is permitted in a 合作伙伴ship or other form of organization which meets the requirements of paragraph (b); and
      (5) A lawyer may share legal fees, 无论是由仲裁庭裁决的还是在解决问题时接受的, with a nonprofit organization that employed, 保留, 或者推荐聘请澳博app处理此事 and that qualifies under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
   (b) A lawyer may practice law in a 合作伙伴ship or other form of organization in which a financial interest is held or managerial authority is exercised by an individual nonlawyer who performs professional services which assist the organization in providing legal services to clients, 但前提是:
      (一)以向委托人提供法律服务为唯一目的的合伙企业或者组织;
      (2) All persons having such managerial authority or holding a financial interest undertake to abide by these 规则 of Professional Conduct;
      (3) The lawyers who have a financial interest or managerial authority in the 合作伙伴ship or organization undertake to be responsible for the nonlawyer participants to the same extent as if nonlawyer participants were lawyers under 规则5.1;
      (4)上述条件以书面形式规定.
   (c)澳博app不得准许推荐人, 雇佣了, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

评论

   [1]该规则的条款表达了与非澳博app分享费用的传统限制. (关于不在同一律所的澳博app之间分担费用， 看到 规则1.5(e).这些限制是为了保护澳博app的专业判断独立性. 由委托人以外的人支付澳博app费或工资, or recommends employment of the lawyer, 这一安排并不改变澳博app对委托人的义务. As stated in paragraph (c), 此种安排不应妨碍澳博app的专业判断.
   [2] Traditionally, the canons of legal ethics and disciplinary rules prohibited lawyers from practicing law in a 合作伙伴ship that includes nonlawyers or in any other organization where a nonlawyer is a shareholder, 导演, 或官. Notwithstanding these strictures, 这个行业含蓄地承认为公司法律部门工作的澳博app例外, insurance companies, and legal service organizations.
   [3]由于对单一来源的广泛专业服务的需求增加, 澳博app聘请其他学科的专业人士为他们工作. 只要非澳博app仍然是澳博app的雇员, 这些关系并没有违反纪律规定. 然而, when lawyers and nonlawyers considered forming 合作伙伴ships and professional corporations to provide a combination of legal and other services to the public, 在以前的规定下，他们面临着严重的障碍.
   [4] This rule rejects an absolute prohibition against lawyers and nonlawyers joining together to provide collaborative services, 但是继续将传统的道德要求强加给这样创建的组织. 因此, 澳博app可以在非澳博app持有经济利益或行使管理权的组织中执业, 但前提是(b)(1)项中规定的条件, (b)(2), and (b)(3) are satisfied, and pursuant to subparagraph (b)(4), 这些条件的满足将以书面文书的形式列明. The requirement of a writing helps ensure that these important conditions are not overlooked in establishing the organizational structure of entities in which nonlawyers enjoy an ownership or managerial role equivalent to that of a 合作伙伴 in a traditional law firm.
   [5] Nonlawyer participants under 规则5.4不应与规则5下的非澳博app助理混淆.3. Nonlawyer participants are persons having managerial authority or financial interests in organizations that provide legal services. Within such organizations, lawyers with financial interests or managerial authority are held responsible for ethical misconduct by nonlawyer participants about which the lawyers know or reasonably should know. 这与规则5所设想的责任标准相同.1、关于对其他澳博app有直接监督权限的澳博app的责任.
   [6] Nonlawyer assistants under 规则5.3 .在组织中没有管理权或经济利益. Lawyers having direct supervisory authority over nonlawyer assistants are held responsible only for ethical misconduct by assistants about which the lawyers actually know.
   [7]正如(b)款的引言部分所表明的那样, the purpose of liberalizing the 规则 regarding the possession of a financial interest or the exercise of management authority by a nonlawyer is to permit nonlawyer professionals to work with lawyers in the delivery of legal services without being relegated to the role of an employee. 例如, 该规则允许经济学家与反垄断或公用事业从业人员在同一家公司工作, 心理学家或精神科社会工作者与家庭法律从业人员合作，协助为客户提供咨询, 非澳博app说客与提供立法服务的澳博app合作, certified public accountants to work in conjunction with tax lawyers or others who use accountants’ services in performing legal services, 而职业经理人则担任办公室经理, executive 导演s, or in similar positions. In all of these situations, 专业人员可能被赋予经济利益或管理责任, 只要满足(c)款的所有要求.
   [8] Paragraph (b) does not permit an individual or entity to acquire all or any part of the ownership of a law 合作伙伴ship or other form of law practice organization for investment or other purposes. It thus does not permit a corporation, an investment banking firm, 一个投资者, or any other person or entity to entitle itself to all or any portion of the income or profits of a law firm or other similar organization. Since such 一个投资者 would not be an individual performing professional services within the law firm or other organization, (b)款的要求将得不到满足.
   [9] The term “individual” in subparagraph (b) is not intended to preclude the participation in a law firm or other organization by an individual professional corporation in the same manner as lawyers who have incorporated as a professional corporation currently participate in 合作伙伴ships that include professional corporations.
   [10]在(b)款所允许的各种组织中，可能会发生一些费用分摊。. (a)(4)项明确规定不禁止此种费用分摊.
   [11] (a)(5)款允许澳博app与聘用澳博app的非营利组织分担澳博app费, 保留, 或者推荐聘请澳博app处理此事. A lawyer may decide to contribute all or part of legal fees recovered from the opposing party to a nonprofit organization. 这样的捐款可能涉及也可能不涉及分摊费用, but when it does, the prospect that the organization will obtain all or part of the lawyer’s fees does not inherently compromise the lawyer’s professional independence, 该澳博app是由该组织聘请的，还是由该组织聘请或推荐的. A lawyer who has agreed to share legal fees with such an organization remains obligated to exercise professional judgment solely in the client’s best interests. 此外, fee-splitting in these circumstances may promote the financial viability of such nonprofit organizations and facilitate their public interest mission. Unlike the corresponding provision of Model 规则5.4(a)(5), this provision is not limited to sharing of fees awarded by a court because that restriction would significantly interfere with settlement of cases, 而不显著推进例外的目的. To prevent abuse of this broader exception, 它只适用于符合《澳博app》第501(c)(3)条规定的非营利组织.