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
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
© 2024 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 AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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