Mitigating Risk in a Shared Office Space
Attorneys are increasingly joining their fellow professionals in the shared office space realm. Often referred to as a co-working space, this relatively…
March 27, 2018 at 03:26 PM
6 minute read
![](https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2018/03/Business-Meeting-Article-201803271925.jpg)
Attorneys are increasingly joining their fellow professionals in the shared office space realm. Often referred to as a co-working space, this relatively recent phenomenon allows multiple individuals with their own practices to pool their resources to rent out a single space. Often times the office-mates will share other administrative costs, such as supplies or staff Some attorneys will even share their space with other non-attorney professionals.
There are indeed many benefits in a shared office space; but they are not without risk. Although shared office spaces are almost universally recognized as not per se unethical, they pose a number of unique challenges for attorneys in complying with the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Moreover, shared spaces can pose civil liability risk to attorneys as well.
For example, if an attorney does not take affirmative steps to inform a client that the shared space is composed of distinct practices, there is a risk that a client could reasonably believe that he or she was entering into a relationship with every attorney in the shared space.
In many jurisdictions, including Texas, an attorney-client relationship can form based on the “reasonable belief” of a client claiming the relationship. See Parker v. Carnahan, 772 S.W.2d 151, 157 (Tex. App. 1989). Moreover, whether the client reasonably believed that she was represented by the attorneys is a factual issue, which makes it important for the attorneys in a shared space to carefully consider their surroundings.
Nevertheless, sharing an office space can be legal, ethical, and profitable. Most attorneys in a coworking space will take steps to effectively communicate with their clients so that the clients understand that each law practice within the space is distinct and that no general partnership among the shared space attorneys exists. Below are additional steps that can also help minimize risk and maximize reward.
Communicate with Shared Staff and Fellow Office Mates
Shared spaces may also provide the advantage of shared staff. Many attorneys find it important to have a conversation with the shared staff to educate them about the relationship between the attorneys in the office as well as their own practice. This conversation can be especially helpful if the staff is communicating with prospective or current clients, or even answering phone calls.
When an attorney is sharing their office space with non-attorneys, the attorney may take steps to educate their office mates on the impact of the professional rules on the relationship, particularly the attorney's obligation to maintain confidentiality. See TX Eth. Op. 493 (June 1994) (finding it is not unethical per se for an attorney to share space with nonattorneys). Although the attorney will ultimately remain responsible for ensuring compliance with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct in the practice, they may find it easier to meet their obligations when the non-attorneys are also aware of the rules and the limitations on the shared space. For example, it may be helpful to stress the importance of persevering the secrecy of clients' confidential information.
Separate Files
While this step may seem obvious, many attorneys in a shared space will take the time to carefully label and separate their files to maintain client confidences. This can include both physical copies as well as digital files. An effective mail and filing system will also help with organization. Conveying those steps to clients may ensure that they are not confused about which attorney is handling their case.
Shared spaces can also consider implementing precautions where attorneys share computer systems or utilize a common network. Access can be restricted so that each attorney only has access to their own clients' information and files.
Consider the Message in Shared Firm Materials
As discussed above, one of the most beneficial aspects of sharing an office space is saving costs for solo practitioners. A risk, however, is that when determining whether an attorney-client relationship has been created, the fact-finder will often consider what a reasonable person would conclude given how the attorneys held themselves out to the public. State Bar Associations nationwide have concluded that the way attorneys represent themselves to the public, includes through door graphics, letterhead, and/or business cards. If attorneys in a shared space use those tools in a way that combines the attorneys' information, it could create confusion for a reasonable person about whether the attorneys practice together as a firm. It could also constitute a misrepresentation that runs afoul of the professional rules.
For example, the Texas State Bar found it was a violation of State Bar Rule 7.04 for a group of independent attorneys sharing office space to use the following graphic on the door to their offices: “SMITH, JONES AND WASHINGTON.” This was so even though the sign contained the disclaimer “Law Offices of Independent Practitioners.” See TX Eth. Op. 509 (Sept. 1995). While an appropriate disclaimer can permit the sharing of some firm materials, it may not be enough to overcome other direct suggestions that the attorneys are part of a shared firm and not independent.
For the avoidance of doubt, attorneys can consider whether to include in their engagement letters with clients an additional disclaimer with respect to the other attorneys sharing the office space. Further, attorneys may raise the issue with clients orally to alleviate any concerns or misapprehensions.
Clear communications between attorneys in the shared space and their clients can help eliminate confusion about the growing trend of solo practitioners sharing an office space. Accounting for the ethical concerns discussed above, both new and seasoned attorneys may find that coworking spaces continue to be a profitable, pleasurable, and ethical environment for practicing law.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons and serves on the firm's US 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 is a partner at Dentons and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
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 All![From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2022/11/maslanka-michael-p-19-767x633.jpg)
From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
6 minute read![It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2023/07/John-Browning-767x633.jpg)
![Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2023/12/Reiter-Pollack-Siegel_2-767x633.jpg)
Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
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