The Oklahoma Bar Journal September 2022

L aw P ractice T ips

Office Sharing Tips for Lawyers It Seems Simple Until It’s Not

By Jim Calloway

I T IS CERTAINLY NOT RARE to see lawyers practicing in an office sharing arrangement. Sometimes a law firm that is downsizing finds itself with more office space than it needs, and sub letting makes sense. Two or three lawyers might rent an office suite for their individual solo practices. Office sharers can benefit from sharing overhead expenses, such as utility bills and equipment. And there can be many benefits, such as lawyers nearby to discuss issues with or someone filing a pleading for you when they do their own filings, saving you a courthouse trip. Office sharing is also positive when a lawyer wants to slow down and practice less than full time but still needs a place to interview clients and someone to sign for deliveries and certi fied mail when the lawyer is out. Sometimes your officemates may be a good source of referrals. Office sharing may appear to be simple on its face. But for the lawyers who want to comply with all ethical rules, protect them selves and have appropriate and effective business operations, there is a lot to consider. Foremost among lawyers’ minds will be complying with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct regarding client confi dences, conflicts of interest and

Clients waiting for their appointment repeatedly hear the receptionist answer

the like. Good lawyers will also be concerned about whether they may be opening themselves up to potential liability. So even though office sharing has the potential for positive benefits, some thought and advance preparation is advised. One must then invest the energy and time-building pro cesses that address each signifi cant area of concern. BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING Let’s begin with the formation of the attorney-client relationship. The solo practitioner will be the one representing their client, just like the other officemates are. But while you may share overhead expenses, you don’t want to share any potential liability should a case go poorly. So let’s reverse engineer this. If you were trying to sue three office-sharing lawyers on a theory of implied partnership or partnership by estoppel, what evidence could you muster?

the phone “Smith, Jones and Wilson, Attorneys.”

While I have noted before that “Hello, law office” is not an inspiring way to answer incoming calls, 1 it is common, and I suspect the practice is often inspired by office-sharing arrangements. (Very cautious lawyers might even con sider signage in the waiting room: “This is not a law firm partnership. The attorneys who work here each have individual law practices.”) “Their website said ‘Smith, Jones and Wilson.’ It seemed like a partnership to me.” Normally each solo practitioner should have a separate website. Not only does that possibly relate to lia bility, but it makes things simpler when someone wants to move to another location. There could be a situation where an office complex might have a website listing the various lawyers who office there. But examine these exceptions to the “rule” with your plaintiff’s law yer eyes, and you should be able to minimize any risk. Client billing should come only from the engaged attorney and not from a firm name.

The sign on the front of the building says

“Smith, Jones and Wilson, Attorneys at Law.”

This is not to say the sign is determinative in a court proceed ing, but three separate signs with individual lawyers’ names are better.

48 | SEPTEMBER 2022

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL