What to Know When Making Business Deals With Clients
It is becoming more common for attorneys to invest financially in their clients, but there can be restrictions.
March 09, 2020 at 01:16 PM
6 minute read
In the typical attorney-client relationship, attorneys may provide legal advice that is used to help clients achieve and maintain their business goals. Sometimes, based on their work together, attorneys and clients become friends and have social relationships independent of the attorney-client relationship or may look for other ways to work together. Imagine a client approaching their attorneys to describe a new business venture: Perhaps the attorney would consider forgoing a traditional fee arrangement to provide legal services for the venture in exchange for an ownership interest in the venture. What are the rules?
It is becoming more common for attorneys to invest financially in their clients, but there can be restrictions. As an initial matter, Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8 (a) provides guidance to attorneys considering whether to invest in their clients or enter into such business transactions. Rule 1.8 (a) provides that a lawyer shall neither enter into a business transaction with a client if the client expects the lawyer to exercise the lawyer's professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, nor shall the lawyer knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:
- The terms of the transaction are fair and reasonable to the client and disclosed in writing.
- The client is informed of and given the chance to seek independent counsel regarding the transaction.
- The client provides written, informed consent to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction (including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction).
The American Bar Association has recognized that this sort of arrangement may even be preferable for attorneys who work for start-up businesses, which may be short on cash to pay lawyers but high on potential. The ABA has noted that the Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit a lawyer from acquiring an ownership interest, whether as a traditional investment opportunity or in lieu of a cash payment for legal services. See ABA Formal Opinion 00-418 (July 7, 2000).
While there is nothing inherently unethical about these non-traditional financial arrangements or investments, an initial consideration of the requirements of Rule 1.8 can ensure that attorneys implement steps to ensure that such financial arrangements in their clients are proper.
Consider the Fairness and Reasonableness
In reviewing whether an investment relationship is appropriate, attorneys may consider potential conflicts of interest and the overall optics of the transaction. Whether the transaction's terms were fair or reasonable will typically be viewed from the perspective of the client and, sometimes, after the fact. Courts and bar associations reviewing such an arrangement may be particularly focused on whether there is any suggestion that the attorney is financially trading off of the client's confidences and secrets or otherwise taking advantage of their knowledge of the client's confidential information. This is particularly important due to the concern that attorneys could place their financial interests above the interests of their clients, thereby potentially creating a conflict.
Many attorneys in this situation will consider seeking the advice of their colleagues or objective attorneys to assess the reasonableness of the investment terms. This additional step can help avoid the appearance of bias by the attorney obtaining the financial interest in the client.
Obtain Written Informed Consent
In accordance with the professional rules, obtaining written informed consent from a client will typically require that:
- The client has been afforded the opportunity to consult independent counsel;
- The client has been informed of the risks, advantages, disadvantages, alternatives and information necessary to assess the transaction; and
- The client affirmatively and expressly consents to the transaction.
To obtain the client's informed consent to the potential risks associated with the proposed investment, consider documenting the specific information provided to the client. The document can be sufficiently detailed so that, if a question ever arises, a third party can readily determine that the client was reasonably informed prior to providing consent.
Another particularly important disclosure to consider is the degree to which the relationship between the attorney and the client might be affected by the proposed arrangement. For instance, an investment by an attorney could change the relationship between the parties and impact the attorney-client relationship, such as if the attorney becomes a shareholder, limited partner, or partner of the client. As an additional precaution, some attorneys will require the signature of an additional witness to the consent, but it is not required.
Following the recommended steps and guidelines may help achieve the ultimate goal to eliminate misunderstanding and prevent disputes regarding the client's consent to the transaction.
Considering The Involvement of Independent Counsel
Having an opportunity to consult with independent counsel can help clients confirm the path forward. Pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Rule 1.8, attorneys may advise clients that they can consult with independent counsel regarding the reasonableness and fairness of the proposed terms. If the client chooses to consult with independent counsel, that can help confirm the overall reasonableness of the transaction and potentially increase the likelihood that the agreement will survive a critical inspection in the future. Nevertheless, clients may, and have the right to, decide not to consult independent counsel after being fully advised.
Tips for In-House Lawyers
Rule 1.8 is also understood to apply to in-house counsel when they are negotiating deals with their corporation clients that provide ownership interests to the counsel. As detailed by the Southern District of California in Gurvey v. Legend Films, Inc., an in-house lawyer may need to advise their client corporation to seek independent counsel and provide written consent before entering into a business transaction by which the counsel would acquire an ownership interest in the company.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons in Atlanta and Washington, D.C., and serves on the firm's U.S. board of directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team.
Alanna Clair, also a partner at the firm in Washington, focuses on professional liability and insurance defense. Klevens and Clair are co-authors of "The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance" and the 2020 edition of "Georgia Legal Malpractice Law."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAtlanta-Based Fearless Fund Ends Black-Only Entrepreneurial Grant Contest After Settling Civil Rights Lawsuit
Deal Watch: Latham, Weil Lead Home Improvement Deal; Dealmakers Face Election Headwinds
8 minute readJetBlue-Spirit Airlines Planned $3.8 Billion Merger Dropped Due to Antitrust Concerns
Deal Watch: Kirkland, Akin Drive Energy Deals as Big Law Leans Into Sector for M&A
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250