By: Shabbi S. Khan, Natasha Allen, David W. Kantaros, Chanley T. Howell, Graham P. MacEwan, and Avi B. Ginsberg, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES KEY CONSIDERATIONS IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS...
By: Kirk A. Sigmon BANNER WITCOFF
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES PATENTING ARTIFICIAL (AI), MACHING LEARNING (ML), AND RELATED INVENTIONS.
It provides a high-level overview of AI and ML, offers tips for drafting...
By: Rose J. Hunter Jones, Kassi R. Burns, and Meredith A. Perlman, KING & SPALDING
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES BEST PRACTICES AND STRATEGIC INSIGHTS LITIGATORS SHOULD CONSIDER IN A FEDERAL COURT LITIGATION...
By: Practical Guidance Real Estate, Construction, and Finance Attorney Teams
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE RECENTLY COMPLETED ITS ANNUAL PRIVATE MARKET DATA REAL ESTATE SURVEY. This survey, which ran from August...
By: D. Reed Freeman Jr., ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE PRINCIPLE OF DATA MINIMIZATION in the context of commercial applications of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology...
Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis and/or its Licensors.
By: Devika Kewalramani MOSES & SINGER LLP
Lawyers are prohibited from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers unless an exception applies. The issue of fee sharing infrequently arises for in-house counsel as they are typically salaried employees who usually do not receive fees for advising their corporate employers.
ON THE RARE OCCASION THAT IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS represent their employer-client in litigation and arbitration matters, ethical issues involving fee sharing and the unauthorized practice of law may be implicated. N.Y. State Ethics Opinion 1121 (Opinion 1121 issued by the New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics (the Committee) in May 20171 dealt with two issues:
(1) whether in-house counsel for a company may remit the entire attorney’s fee portion of an arbitration award to the claimant company without violating the fee-sharing rule and (2) whether remittal of attorney’s fees to its corporate employer would constitute aiding the non-lawyer company in the unauthorized practice of law.
In Opinion 1121, the inquiring in-house counsel was employed by a corporation that provided medical equipment to individuals through prescribing physicians. In-house counsel handled general corporate matters and arbitrations involving denial of insurance claims and occasionally litigated them. If the claimant corporation made a monetary recovery resulting from the arbitration, the amount would be bifurcated with a portion of the award being paid for (1) the incorrect denial by the insurance provider for the medical equipment and (2) attorney’s fees awarded to the attorney-of-record. Industry practice required the paying insurance companies to distribute the attorney’s fees award to the attorney-of-record and not directly to the corporation. After receipt by the attorney-of-record, the only means by which the employer-corporation could recover the attorney’s fees was by way of sharing fees.
To read the full practice note in Lexis Practice Advisor, follow this link.
Devika Kewalramani is a partner at Moses & Singer LLP and co-chair of its Legal Ethics & Law Firm Practice. Ms. Kewalramani focuses her practice on legal ethics, professional discipline, risk management, and compliance. She serves as the chair of the Committee on Professional Discipline of the New York City Bar Association.
For more on trends related to sanctions, see
> IN-HOUSE COUNSEL SANCTIONS: RECENT TRENDS
RESEARCH PATH: Corporate Counsel > Ethics for In-House Counsel > Conflicts of Interest > Articles
For a discussion of how to spot ethical challenges, see/em>
> IDENTIFYING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
RESEARCH PATH: Corporate Counsel > Ethics for InHouse Counsel > Conflicts of Interest > Practice Notes
For information on disqualification of in-house counsel resulting from a conflict of interest, see
> IN-HOUSE COUNSEL DISQUALIFICATION: RARE BUT REAL
1. New York State Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 1121 (2017).