Ethics Opinion 329

非营利性组织费用安排与所委托的澳门赌场官网

*[注:请参阅第329号意见如何受到对D.C. 2007年2月1日生效的《澳门赌场官网》

非营利性组织费用安排与所委托的澳门赌场官网

非营利组织每年付给澳门赌场官网10美元的安排,以或有费用的方式处理日工的小额赔偿要求，然后收取第一笔10美元的保留费,澳门赌场官网每年收到的用于支付组织费用的000美元的费用并不违反规则5.4(a)只要补偿仅限于自付费用，且不与澳门赌场官网代表特定客户或客户收取的费用金额挂钩.

应用程序licable Rules

• Rule 5.4(a)(澳门赌场官网不得与非澳门赌场官网分担法律费用)
• Rule 7.1(b)(5)(澳门赌场官网可就法律业务的介绍向中介人支付对价)

Inquiry

The inquirer, 哥伦比亚特区的非营利实体, 愿意协助日工追索小额工人的赔偿. 非营利组织从经验中了解到，日工很难找到愿意在这类案件中提供代理的称职澳门赌场官网. 协助促进充分的代表, 这家非营利组织提议向一名合格的澳门赌场官网支付10美元,000 annual retainer for handling these matters; allow the attorney to take a 10 percent contingency fee from client awards; and then require the attorney to pay the non-profit the first $10,他每年收到的或有费用，使其能够收回自付的聘用成本. 除了收回自付费用, 非营利组织与澳门赌场官网的财务安排与澳门赌场官网在代表特定客户时收取的费用金额没有任何关系. 该非营利组织已要求委员会就这一安排是否符合DC《澳门赌场官方软件》发表意见. 委员会的结论是，理由如下.¹

Discussion

Rule 5.DC规则第4(a)条规定，“澳门赌场官网或澳门赌场官网事务所不得与非澳门赌场官网分担法律费用”，但与本调查无关的某些狭义情况除外. 这一规定可以解释为禁止澳门赌场官网从客户那里收取的部分费用与提出推荐的组织分享. DC Rule 7.然而，第1(b)(5)条另有规定. 它明确指出，如果澳门赌场官网“采取合理步骤确保潜在客户了解:a)考虑事项”，则与中介机构的介绍费安排可能是适当的, if 任何, 由澳门赌场官网支付或将支付给中介, and b) the effect, if 任何, 支付给中介人的总费用中要收取的.“此外，对规则7的评论6.1指出，“澳门赌场官网可以参加澳门赌场官网推荐项目，并支付此类项目通常收取的费用."

这似乎是一种内在的冲突, therefore, 规则5规定的禁止澳门赌场官网与非澳门赌场官网之间分摊费用的规定.第4条和第7条中发现的与非澳门赌场官网分享费用的默示接受.1. 这里和其他司法管辖区的许多伦理意见都审查了这种冲突，以确定在某些情况下是否允许费用分摊安排. 一般来说，这些意见都着眼于作为规则5基础的公共政策.并已确定，如果这些安排符合规定，则这些安排是允许的. In reaching this conclusion, the ethics opinions, 包括本委员会的一份, have focused on two of the policy considerations: 1) whether a proposed arrangement would interfere with a lawyer’s independent judgment; and 2) whether refusing to permit the arrangement would result in fewer legal resources being available for those in need of them.

This Committee opined in 2001 that a lawyer may "participate in a federal government referral service that negotiates contracts to provide legal services to federal agencies where that program requires the lawyer to submit one percent of the legal fees received through the service to the government office in order to fund the program." D.C. Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 307(2001)委员会的结论是，由于规则所依据的政策考虑，这种安排是可以接受的，尽管它涉及澳门赌场官网和非澳门赌场官网之间的费用分摊. Id. 委员会注意到对规则7的评论6.第1段“建议D .的起草者.C. Rules were not particularly concerned about the manner in which non-profit lawyer referral services structured their fee arrangements; their principal focus was on preventing non-lawyer intermediaries from using their power over lawyers who rely on them for business referrals to influence those lawyers’ ’professional independence of judgment.’” Id. (citing Rule 5.4 cmt. 1). The Committee then concluded that the proposed arrangement obviated this concern because the inquiring organization presented "no risks of interfering with participating lawyers’ independent professional judgment." Id.² In addition, 委员会指出，提交的组织“是一个旨在实现重要公共政策目标的非营利性服务机构, 包括降低纳税人向政府机构提供法律服务的成本." Id.³

第307号意见引用了其他司法管辖区的一些意见，这些意见也允许澳门赌场官网和非澳门赌场官网非营利组织之间分担费用. For example, 它提到了密歇根州的一项决定，该决定认为“在州澳门赌场官网协会注册的非营利性澳门赌场官网推荐服务可以收取推荐费用的百分比作为推荐费用。." Mich. State 酒吧 Comm. on Prof. and Judicial Ethics, Op. RI-75 (1991). In rendering its opinion, 密歇根州委员会也指出了同样的政策原因, 注意到，只要转介服务机构采取措施，防止对澳门赌场官网施加不当影响, 不妨碍澳门赌场官网的专业判断，不违反不得与非澳门赌场官网平分费用的规定." Id.

第307号意见也提到了宾夕法尼亚州, 阿肯色州和弗吉尼亚州的意见得出结论，由当地澳门赌场官网协会运营的澳门赌场官网推荐服务可能会接受澳门赌场官网从推荐客户那里获得的一定比例的费用. 看到 Pa. 酒吧 Assoc. Ethics Op. 93-162 (1993); Ark. 酒吧 Assoc. Op. 95-01 (1995); and Va. Legal Ethics Comm. Op. 1744 (2001). 这些意见指出，一些司法管辖区通过退还转介澳门赌场官网的费用来资助其法律转介服务. 阿肯色州澳门赌场官网协会进一步表示，“澳门赌场官网协会收入的增加将有助于维持这项公共服务。." Ark. Op. 95-01 The Virginia opinion also provides support for the idea that fee-sharing is permissible when the arrangement would not interfere with a lawyer’s professional judgment and furthers the public policy of providing legal services to those in need of them. 它的结论是，接受非营利性协会无偿服务的私人执业澳门赌场官网可以将法院裁定的澳门赌场官网费返还给该协会. Va. Legal Ethics Comm. Op. 1744(2001)在得出这个结论, 该委员会指出，“禁止澳门赌场官网与公共利益团体分享法庭裁决费用的法律道德规则将危及这一重要的资金来源。." Id.⁴

美国澳门赌场官网协会(American 酒吧 Association)至少三次表示，类似的费用分摊安排并未违反其早期的《澳门赌场官网》(Code of Professional Responsibility). In Formal Opinion 291, 美国澳门赌场官网协会决定，“澳门赌场官网协会可以要求澳门赌场官网推荐小组的成员以固定收费或收取一定比例的费用来资助这项服务。." ABA Formal Op. No. 291 (1956) In addition, 美国澳门赌场官网协会的结论是，澳门赌场官网推荐服务要求澳门赌场官网退还全部或部分咨询费是“合乎道德的”, 以及收取一定比例的费用, to the service. ABA Informal Op. 1076 (1966) Finally, 第93-374号正式意见指出，澳门赌场官网可以提供无偿诉讼服务，然后与推荐澳门赌场官网给客户的非营利组织分享任何法院裁决费用的一部分. ABA Formal Op. 93-374 (1993).

《澳门赌场官网法重述》也反映了同样的观点，即与指定的非营利组织分担费用时，不存在分担费用的问题. 重述载有与规则5类似的规定.4(a) of the D.C. Rules. 看到 《澳门赌场官网法》第10(3)条(1998)重述(第三)(“澳门赌场官网或澳门赌场官网事务所不得与未获准执业的人分担法律费用,“除非在某些不相关的情况下。”. 对第10条的评论表明，只有在政策考虑需要狭义解释的情况下，才应严格解释分摊费用的禁令. Comment b notes, for example, “本条应解释为防止非澳门赌场官网对澳门赌场官网服务的控制, not to implement other goals such as preventing new and useful ways of providing legal services or making sure that non-lawyers do not profit indirectly from legal services in circumstances and under arrangements presenting no significant risk of harm to clients or third persons." Id. § 10 cmt. b. In addition, 评论指出，虽然费用分成给了非澳门赌场官网推荐人权力, 当推荐来自非营利性推荐服务时，这种激励就不存在了." Id. at cmt. d.⁵

判例法进一步支持这样一种观点，即根据各种职业行为规则，澳门赌场官网和转介服务之间分担费用是可以接受的. In Emmons v. State 酒吧 of California, 6 Cal. 应用程序. 3d 565 (1970), for example, 加州一家法院拒绝了原告的宣告判决请求，该请求将允许原告避免向澳门赌场官网协会的澳门赌场官网转介服务支付三分之一的转介费.⁶ 看到 Id. 与各州道德委员会发表的意见类似，法院在 Emmons 依靠政策原因允许这种费用分摊. 法院指出，“在动机方面存在很大差异, technique, 以及社会影响——在澳门赌场官网协会提供的澳门赌场官网参考服务和规则禁止的不光彩的“分费”之间. Id. at 573. Fee-splitting that should not be allowed "carries with it the danger of competitive solicitation; poses the possibility of control by the lay person, interested in his own profit rather than the client’s fate; facilitates the lay intermediary’s tendency to select the most generous, not the most competent, attorney." Id. at 573-74. On the other hand, 与澳门赌场官网协会的澳门赌场官网参考服务分摊费用是允许的，因为“澳门赌场官网协会追求的不是个人利益，而是实现公共和职业目标。. It has a legitimate, 非营利组织对使公众更容易获得法律服务的兴趣." Id. at 574.⁷

While these opinions, court decisions, 标准表明，拟议的安排得到了大力支持, there is one aspect, 也就是说，澳门赌场官网将代表临时工收取或有费用, 这需要进一步分析. 在1998年提出的意见中，本委员会决定，规则5.第4条禁止澳门赌场官网向转诊服务机构付款，如果付款是“视情况而定的”, and tied to, 澳门赌场官网从被推荐的法律业务中获得的收入，并与这些费用的金额挂钩." D.C. Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 286(1998)根据这一意见，唯一背离禁止分摊费用的是规则7.1 permits is the authorization of payments to referring organizations when the payments are non-contingent and "paid regardless of the success or outcome" because that does not represent a division of legal fees. Id.⁸ A later opinion from this Committee relating to soliciting plaintiffs for class action lawsuits or obtaining legal work through Internet-based web pages expressed approval of this interpretation of the rules. 看到 D.C. Legal Ethics, Op. 302 (2000) (agreeing with the view that "任何 fee a law firm pays to a service provider [on the internet] cannot be linked to or contingent on the amount of legal fees the lawyers obtain from a posted project. . . 因为这样的安排会违反D.C. Rule 5.4 .禁止澳门赌场官网与非澳门赌场官网分担法律费用”。.

这两种意见可以解释为排除 任何 费用分摊安排，费用取决于澳门赌场官网从被推荐的客户那里收到的收入. But the opinions are narrower than that and do not address whether a non-profit that refers its clients to lawyers may recoup its out-of-pocket costs in situations where the lawyer collects sufficient funds to pay them from the various contingent fees he or she receives.⁹ This fee arrangement is different from the one precluded in Opinion 286 and referred to in Opinion 302 because it is not tied to the amount of fees collected by the lawyer in his or her representation of a particular client. In addition, 这两种意见都早于307号意见，307号意见支持分摊费用的安排，这比286号意见或302号意见中提到的情况更类似于我们的情况.

This Opinion, however, is limited to the specific facts of this Inquiry and should not be interpreted as a deviation from previously-expressed concerns about contingent fee-sharing arrangements which are explicitly linked to the amounts of fees collected by an attorney in the representation of a specific client or specific clients.

委员会认为，第5条.4’s prohibition on fee-sharing does not preclude a non-profit from recouping its out-of-pocket expenses by requiring a lawyer to whom cases are referred to repay the expenses if sufficient funds are received from contingent fees obtained from various representations. 第307号意见明确指出:

’[T]he drafters of the D.C. Rules were not particularly concerned about the manner in which non-profit lawyer referral services structured their fee arrangements; their principal focus was on preventing non-lawyer intermediaries from using their power over lawyers who rely upon them for business referrals to influence those lawyers’ professional independence of judgment.’

D.C. Rule 5.4, Comment [1].

因为这里非营利组织和澳门赌场官网之间的特殊关系结构与澳门赌场官网和非营利组织推荐服务之间通常存在的关系相当, 委员会的结论是，委员会第307号意见的理由同样适用于这类安排，因为它:1)不妨碍澳门赌场官网的独立判断;¹⁰ (二)为有需要的人士提供法律服务，使市民受惠.¹¹ 如委员会第225号意见所指出, 其结论是，预付法律服务计划符合《澳门赌场官方软件》;

《澳门赌场官网》中没有任何内容旨在限制或阻碍使用提供法律服务的创新方法 . . . . “这一领域的创新方法和新想法可能会使以前雇不起澳门赌场官网的个人获得必要的低成本法律服务.”

As part of the arrangement, however, 咨询非营利组织和提供服务的澳门赌场官网, 必须遵守规则7所载的通知条文.1(b)(5).

应用程序roved: May 2005
Published: June 2005

1. 为本意见的目的, 委员会假定该非营利组织没有从其与澳门赌场官网的关系中获利. Under § 32-1530 of the D.C. Code, 任何人将招揽澳门赌场官网就工人赔偿的任何索赔或裁决进行辩护作为一项“业务”是非法的. 本《澳门赌场官方软件》条文不会禁止向委员会说明的安排.
2. D.C. Legal Ethics Comm., 第233号意见还谈到了禁止费用分摊背后的政策:“长期以来，禁止费用分摊以及与非澳门赌场官网合作一直是法律道德规范的一个特征. 他们的动机是多方面的, 主要是，非澳门赌场官网可以通过这种安排从事未经授权的法律业务, 客户的信心可能会受到损害, 非澳门赌场官网可能会控制澳门赌场官网的活动，干扰澳门赌场官网独立的职业判断." In the opinion, 向非澳门赌场官网顾问支付“成功”费是可以接受的，即使这些钱是通过澳门赌场官网事务所支付的，因为支付程序是“无关紧要的形式”." D.C. Legal Ethics Op. 233 (1993).
3. 看到 also D.C. Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 253(1994)(认为保险公司和澳门赌场官网事务所之间的转介安排涉及为每一个转介案件支付费用，“不违反”规则5.4 and 7.尽管“推荐费”将由公司从其应急费用的百分比中支付,但如果在规则1下存在潜在的利益冲突问题，这种安排可能会失败.7 and 1.3).
4. 看到 also Va. Legal Ethics Comm. Op. 1751(2001)(注意到许多司法管辖区接受安排，允许转介服务从转介澳门赌场官网那里收取一定比例的费用, 并指出这种广泛的接受“表明了各种澳门赌场官网对增加公众获得法律服务的强烈支持”)。.
5. 《澳门赌场官方软件》中关于地址费的其他规定同样表明对可能损害澳门赌场官网独立性的安排的关切. 看到 e.g. id. § 47 cmt. b ("the traditional prohibition of fee-splitting among lawyers is justified primarily as preventing one lawyer from recommending another to a client on the basis of the referral fee that the recommended lawyer will pay, rather than the lawyer’s qualifications"); id. § 134 cmt. C(注意澳门赌场官网对客户的忠诚不得因第三方付款来源而受到损害).
6. 这个案例被伦理委员会的意见广泛引用. 看到 e.g. D.C. Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 307; Va. Op. 1751; Ark. Op. 95-01; Pa. Op. 93-162; Mich. Op. RI-75.
7. Kean v. Stone, 966 F.2d 119 (3rd Cir. 1992), 还支持澳门赌场官网转介服务和澳门赌场官网之间的费用分摊可能被允许的想法. 基恩认为，工会可能“间接受益于法律业务的收益”，因为诉讼费用“被支付到一个单独的账户中，该账户仅由澳门赌场官网用于诉讼目的”." 966 F.2d at 123.
8. 该意见部分依赖于佛罗里达州澳门赌场官网职业道德委员会发布的意见, 它认为“非澳门赌场官网受雇代表澳门赌场官网从事允许的营销活动可以直接支付工资?,但是，“如果佣金将与非澳门赌场官网的努力给公司带来的业务所产生的法律费用挂钩。, 支付这些佣金将违反(佛罗里达州的规定)禁止澳门赌场官网与非澳门赌场官网平分法律费用." Fla. 酒吧 Prof. Ethics Comm., Op. 89-4 (1989).
9. 委员会没有处理澳门赌场官网是否必须退还未用于向日工客户提供法律服务的任何部分的定金的问题. 需要归还全部或部分保留金的情况由委员会第264号意见规定. 我们的理解是，这是一种保留，以确保该意见明确允许的可用性.
10. 所讨论的非营利组织似乎不隶属于任何澳门赌场官网协会，这不应该影响非营利组织从被推荐的澳门赌场官网那里获得部分费用的能力. 看到 Prof. Ethics Comm. of the State 酒吧 of Tex., Op. 502 (1994) (holding that a non-profit service that was not established by a bar association may refer clients to a lawyer and then receive a portion of the fee collected by the lawyer in part because Texas public policy supports the establishment of lawyer referral services, 通过这种安排收取的费用将有利于这项政策。).
11. 还应该指出的是，道德委员会和法院都指出，如果澳门赌场官网要提高客户的费用，以支付将部分资金返还给转介服务的费用, 这种安排在道德上是不可接受的. 看到, e.g., Cal. State 酒吧 Ethics Op. 1983-70(1983)认为澳门赌场官网转介服务可能要求澳门赌场官网从转介客户那里收取的超过最低门槛的所有费用的一定百分比返还给服务, 但澳门赌场官网不得提高法律费用来支付支付给服务的金额, as "such arrangements should be structured in order to avoid the risk of increased costs to the clients"); Alpers v. Hunt, 86 Cal. 78, 88 (Cal. 1890) (holding that a contract made with a non-lawyer through a third party who would receive one third of 任何 recovered funds was invalid in part because "such a practice would tend to increase the amounts demanded for professional services. 在这种情况下，澳门赌场官网会被诱使要求更高的服务费用, 因为他必须和第三人分这笔钱。”). In addition, The D.C. 职业行为规则要求向客户收取的任何费用都是合理的. 看到 D.C. 职业行为准则. 1.5. 参见美国澳门赌场官网协会正式文件. 00-420 (2000); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984). However, 通过只允许澳门赌场官网支付10%的应急费用，并要求澳门赌场官网只退还这10美元,000 that had been advanced, 拟议中的安排避免冒犯这些基于收费的担忧.