伦理意见233
Payment of “Success 费用” to Nonlawyer Consultants
澳博app事务所可以同意委托人的意见, depending on the outcome of a particular matter, “成功费”将支付给澳博app事务所和澳博app事务所聘请的由非澳博app专家组成的咨询公司，以协助其处理此事. 支付给非澳博app顾问的“成功费”部分是由客户通过澳博app事务所支付的，这一事实并没有导致澳博app事务所与规则5所禁止的非澳博app“分享”法律费用.4.
适用的规则
- 规则5.4(澳博app的职业独立性)
调查
初学的, 哥伦比亚特区的一家澳博app事务所, has developed a practice representing clients in connection with the litigation, arbitration and mediation of contract and other disputes in connection with international construction projects. 在这方面, 该澳博app事务所与一家由专业工程师和其他非澳博app专家组成的咨询公司建立了密切的关系，这些咨询公司提供有关工程延误分析的专家建议和意见, 损失的计算, 等.
While the consulting firm occasionally is retained directly by the law firm's client, the more common arrangement is for the law firm to retain the consulting firm, 按小时收费来补偿. The law firm's own work for its clients in this area is typically charged on an hourly-rate basis, but with a "success payment" to the law firm in the event of a successful result.
澳博app事务所希望与咨询公司签订合同安排，根据合同安排，咨询公司不仅可以获得澳博app事务所按小时计算的补偿, 但也 would participate in any "success fees" received by the law firm from its clients on the construction projects. 在任何特定情况下，只有在澳博app事务所的客户事先知情并同意的情况下，才能与咨询公司分享“成功费”.
讨论
所提出的问题是:(1)澳博app事务所与其客户和咨询公司拟议的费用安排是否构成规则5所禁止的澳博app事务所和非澳博app顾问分担法律费用.4(a); and (2) if so, 如果咨询公司同意遵守规则5所载的条件，该费用安排是否会从该一般禁令中删除.4(b)(1)-(4).
The Committee does not reach the second question because we conclude that, so long as the client is fully informed and gives prior consent to the fee agreement in a particular matter, the payment of a success fee by the client to the law firm and, 通过澳博app事务所, to the consulting firm does not constitute a sharing of legal fees proscribed by 规则5.4(a).
The bans on fee-sharing and partnerships with nonlawyers have long been a feature of codes of legal ethics. 他们的动机是多方面的, chiefly that nonlawyers might through such arrangements engage in the unauthorized practice of law, 客户的信心可能会受到损害, and that nonlawyers might control the activities of lawyers and interfere with the lawyers' independent professional judgment. 意见没有. 146.
The Kutak Commission of the American 酒吧 Association, which drafted the ABA Model 职业行为准则, 提出了一种截然不同的方法，允许澳博app和非澳博app之间建立广泛的商业联系. 因此，库塔克委员会认识到从澳博app助理到经济学家等各种类型的非澳博app的重要和不可或缺的作用, social workers and accountants—have come to play in modern law practice. 比较意见No. 93, in which this Committee in 1980 similarly recognized the increasing role of nonlawyers in law practice. The ABA's House of Delegates, however, rejected the Kutak Commission proposal and adopted, 在规则5中.《澳博app》第4条, 普遍禁止与非澳博app分担法律费用，禁止与非澳博app合伙，与旧的美国澳博app协会职业责任示范守则的纪律规则3-102和3-103相对应.
The 职业行为准则 adopted in the District of Columbia, 1月1日生效, 1991, 包含规则5的一个版本.4,, 比如库塔克委员会的提议, reflects a more liberal approach to the subject of fee-sharing and association of nonlawyers in the legal practice. 规则5.4(a), 普遍禁止分摊费用, 它不仅包含了传统的对已故澳博app遗产的支付例外，还包含了基于利润分享的非澳博app雇员的退休计划, 但也, 在规则5中.4(a)(4)和5.4(b), an exception permitting the sharing of fees in partnerships or other organizations in which nonlawyers have an interest, 但须遵守某些保障措施.1
We believe that the more liberal approach embodied in the D.C. 规则, 同时认识到，今天，来自许多学科的非澳博app专家在协助澳博app向客户提供法律服务方面发挥着至关重要的作用, counsels against a broad reading of the 规则5.4 proscription of fee-sharing with nonlawyers in this context. We also think that the present inquiry must be viewed in the light of several propositions that, 在我们看来, 是无可争辩的. 第一个, 《澳博app下载网》中没有任何规定禁止澳博app事务所的客户与咨询公司之间直接安排向咨询公司支付“成功费”. 第二个, it is commonplace for lawyers to retain and pay outside consultants directly and to pass on their charges as an expense in billing their clients; no-one suggests that this constitutes the "sharing" by the lawyer of a fee with the nonlawyer consultant. 第三，对规则3的评论8.4, reflecting another liberalization of the traditional approach in the District of Columbia, permits payments of contingent fees to expert witnesses so long as they are not based on a percentage of the recovery.
考虑到这些因素, 委员会的结论是, so long as the client is fully informed and consents to the arrangement, 咨询公司所考虑的那种成功费不构成与规则5所禁止的非澳博app的法律费用分担.4.2 客户将在一开始就同意向澳博app事务所和咨询公司支付成功费. This is different from a situation in which the client pays a fee to a lawyer, unaware of the fact that the lawyer is obligated to share that fee with a nonlawyer.
客户支付给咨询公司的那部分成功费流经澳博app事务所的事实，并没有将这笔付款转变为由咨询公司“分享”的法律费用，就像客户将澳博app事务所支付给顾问的咨询费偿还给澳博app事务所的更典型安排一样. 在物质, the transaction that results in a payment to the nonlawyer consulting firm is between the client and the consulting firm; the fact that the money passes through the hands of the law firm is a formality of no consequence for purposes of 规则5.4.
因为我们对这个问题的处理, 我们没有理由决定询问澳博app事务所与咨询公司的合同安排是否符合规则5含义中的“合伙或其他形式的组织”.4(a)(4)和5.4(b).
调查没有. 92-9-30
通过:1993年1月26日
1. 规则5.第4条有关部分规定:
(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that:
****
(4) Sharing of fees is permitted in a partnership or other form of organization which meets the requirements of paragraph (b).
(b)澳博app可以在合伙企业或其他形式的组织中执业，在这些组织中持有经济利益或管理权由个人非澳博app行使，该个人非澳博app提供专业服务，协助该组织向客户提供法律服务, but only if: (1) the partnership or organization has as its sole purpose providing legal services to clients; (2) all persons having such managerial authority or holding a financial interest undertake to abide by these rules of professional conduct; (3) the lawyers who have a financial interest or managerial authority in the partnership or organization undertake to be responsible for the nonlawyer participants to the same extent as if onlawyer participants were lawyers under 规则5.1; (4) the foregoing conditions are set forth in writing.
2. In cases in which a member of the consulting firm will testify as an expert witness, the inquiring law firm should bear in mind that while the D.C. 规则 permit payment of fees to expert witnesses contingent on the outcome of the litigation, such fees may not be based on a percentage of the recovery in the case. 规则3.4、评论[8].
