If a  question-answering website complies with all communications and advertising rules, a lawyer may participate in such a program, but with specific caution against inadvertently forming an attorney-client relationship by offering more than basic information of general applicability. 

A lawyer’s participation in a website that uses the word “expert,”  invites specific questions about specific legal matters,  and offers specific legal advice but uses buried small-type statements to attempt to disclaim the creation of attorney/client relationships is prohibited.
 

A contingent fee, payable to a lawyer as a partial ownership interest in real property with the client, may be permissible subject to the lawyer’s compliance with:  Rule 1.8(a), regarding entering into business transactions with a client;  Rule 1.8(i), regarding acquisition of a proprietary interest in the subject matter of litigation; Rule 1.5(c), regarding contingency fees; and Rule 1.5’s reasonableness requirement.

Absent an agreement to the contrary, a law firm is not authorized to use remaining  funds received as a retainer in an initial  matter to cover a portion of an amount due on a second matter.  The law firm should treat any additional funds held in the trust account from  the first matter as it would any other client funds, taking appropriate steps to notify the client of its right to recover the surplus.  If the lawyer’s fee agreement sets forth that any funds remaining in trust may be applied to other matters, then the lawyer may apply the remainder to those matters as specified and agreed to by the client.

A lawyer may report information learned by taking the deposition of the opposing party to tax authorities only with her client’s informed consent as provided in Rule 1.6(a). Since Rule 4.5 prohibits reporting or the threat of reporting to criminal authorities solely to obtain an advantage in a civil action, the lawyer may find it prudent to wait until the litigation is concluded, though the rules do not specifically require it.

It is the Committee’s opinion that the ‘Work Share Agreement’ described above violates Rules 5.4(a) (fee sharing) and Rule 7.2(c) (payment for referral). The Committee does not, however, rule out the possibility that a work-share agreement could be drafted that would comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.