Short answer. Louisiana lets lawyers who are not in the same firm divide a fee only if the client agrees in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved and is advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive, the total fee is reasonable, and each lawyer renders meaningful legal services for the client in the matter (Rule 1.5(e)). Louisiana’s rule does not use the ABA Model Rule’s test of proportion to services or joint responsibility. In Spears v. Hall (2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court said that Rule 7.2(c)(13) contains no exception for referrals between attorneys, and expressly overruled “any cases upholding agreements that do not comply with Rule 1.5”. The rule states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share.
Sources read October 20, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 27, 2026. Rules text is as printed in the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board’s compilation of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (amendments through May 10, 2023), and statutes as printed on legis.la.gov, both fetched October 20, 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
Louisiana’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | Louisiana’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 1.5(e), Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct | La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct (LADB compilation) |
| Written client consent | Required in every division: the client agrees in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved | Rule 1.5(e)(1); Spears v. Hall (2026) |
| Notice to the client | The client is advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive | Rule 1.5(e)(1) |
| Proportion to services or joint responsibility | Neither test is used; each lawyer must render meaningful legal services for the client in the matter | Rule 1.5(e)(3); Spears v. Hall (2026) |
| Reasonable total fee | Required | Rule 1.5(e)(2) |
| Cap on the secondary lawyer’s share | None stated in Rule 1.5(e) | Rule 1.5(e) |
| Statutes | No Louisiana statute regulates dividing a fee between lawyers; La. R.S. 37:213, 37:219, 14:356, 32:397.1 and 23:1143 address furnishing lawyers, paying to obtain clients, and solicitation | La. R.S. 37:213, 37:219, 14:356, 32:397.1, 23:1143 |
What Rule 1.5(e) says
Rule 1.5(e) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, as printed in the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board’s compilation (amendments through May 10, 2023), fetched October 20, 2026 (La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 1.5(e)):
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the client agrees in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved, and is advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive;
(2) the total fee is reasonable; and
(3) each lawyer renders meaningful legal services for the client in the matter.
The date these words took effect is not established in our sources. The order adopting the 2004 revision of the Rules (effective March 1, 2004) is not held, and our research holds two undated versions of Rule 1.5(e)(1)–(3): the Board’s current compilation, quoted here, and a 2001 Internet Archive copy of the Louisiana State Bar Association’s page holding the words before the 2004 revision. In Spears v. Hall (2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court quotes today’s Rule 1.5(e) as “the current version”, in the words quoted above.
What the client must agree to in writing
Every division needs the client’s written agreement to the representation by all of the lawyers involved (Rule 1.5(e)(1)). In Spears v. Hall, No. 2025-C-00195 (La. 2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that, in a fee dispute between lawyers of different firms, the starting point is whether the client agreed in writing and was advised in writing of each lawyer’s share. Whether a fee suit between lawyers is framed as contract or fee dispute is immaterial unless they complied with Rule 1.5(e). The lawyer seeking a share had not shown the client’s written agreement to all the lawyers and to each share (Rule 1.5(e)(1)), or that he rendered meaningful legal services (Rule 1.5(e)(3)). The Court expressly overruled “any cases upholding agreements that do not comply with Rule 1.5”, including oral agreements between lawyers of different firms made without the client’s written agreement.
The Louisiana State Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct Committee (Opinion 07-RPCC-013, 2007) said any agreement between lawyers sharing office space to share fees must comport with Rule 1.5(e), which requires the client to consent in writing to a joint representation and to be advised in writing of each lawyer’s share. In In re Andry, No. 22-30231 (5th Cir. 2023), a lawyer discipline matter, the Fifth Circuit said Rule 1.5(e)(1)’s requirement that the client agree to representation by “all of the lawyers involved” can reasonably be read as all lawyers presently involved, and concluded that Rule 1.5(e) was ambiguous as applied to the facts before it.
What must be disclosed to the client
The client must be advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive (Rule 1.5(e)(1)).
Proportionality or joint responsibility
Louisiana’s current rule does not use the ABA Model Rule’s test (in proportion to services, or joint responsibility). It requires that each lawyer render meaningful legal services for the client in the matter (Rule 1.5(e)(3)), and that the total fee be reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). In Spears v. Hall (2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court read Rule 1.5(e)(3) as meant to make a fee split reflect each lawyer’s actual contribution rather than a referral fee or nominal participation. The Bar Association’s Opinion 12-RPCC-018 (2012) said a suspended or disbarred lawyer cannot render meaningful legal services in the matter as Rule 1.5(e)(3) requires.
Before the 2004 revision, Louisiana’s Rule 1.5(e)(1) used the proportion-or-joint-responsibility test. In re P & E Boat Rentals, Inc. (5th Cir. 1991), Bertucci v. McIntire (La. Ct. App. 1997) and Dukes v. Matheny (La. Ct. App. 2004) applied that earlier wording; their holdings, in the cases table below, are stated as theirs.
Referring a case out of Louisiana, or into it
Louisiana’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 8.5(b), tracks ABA Model Rule 8.5(b). It says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when Louisiana exercises its disciplinary authority (La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 8.5(b)):
(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:
(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and
(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur.
The date these words took effect is not established in our sources.
No Louisiana statute, decision or ethics opinion we hold chooses the law for a fee-division, referral or solicitation question (searched October 20, 2026). Which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral into or out of Louisiana is not settled by an authority we hold.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. Rule 7.2(c)(13) reads (La. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 7.2(c)(13)):
(13) Payment for Recommendations; Lawyer Referral Service Fees. A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may pay the reasonable cost of advertising or written or recorded communication permitted by these Rules, and may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service or other legal service organization only as follows:
(A) A lawyer may pay the usual, reasonable and customary charges of a lawyer referral service operated by the Louisiana State Bar Association, any local bar association, or any other not-for-profit organization, provided the lawyer referral service:
(i) refers all persons who request legal services to a participating lawyer;
(ii) prohibits lawyers from increasing their fee to a client to compensate for the referral service charges; and
(iii) fairly and equitably distributes referral cases among the participating lawyers, within their area of practice, by random allotment or by rotation.
In Spears v. Hall (2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court said: “The Rule contains no exception for referrals between attorneys”, and that sharing fees purely for referrals violates it. - Nonlawyers. “A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non lawyer,” except as Rule 5.4(a)(1)–(5) allows: an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate or to one or more specified persons; a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the deceased lawyer’s estate that proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit sharing arrangement; a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, under Rule 1.17, pay the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price (Rule 5.4(a)(4), in force since July 1, 2016); and a lawyer may share legal fees as otherwise provided in Rule 7.2(c)(13) (Rule 5.4(a)). The Louisiana Supreme Court has disciplined lawyers for sharing legal fees with nonlawyers (In re Watley, 2001; In re Jackson, 2009; In re Garrett, 2009). In In re MMA Law Firm, PLLC (2026), answering certified questions from a federal district court on facts not found, it said a contingent fee contract resulting from impermissible paid solicitations, prohibited fee sharing and the unauthorized practice of law is an absolute nullity. - Solicitation. Except as Rule 7.4(b) provides, a lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior lawyer-client relationship, in person, by person to person verbal telephone contact, through others acting at the lawyer’s request or on the lawyer’s behalf or otherwise, when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain. A lawyer shall not permit employees or agents of the lawyer to solicit on the lawyer’s behalf, and shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect a fee for professional employment obtained in violation of the rule. “Solicit” includes contact in person, by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile, or by other communication directed to a specific recipient, including any written communication directed to a specific recipient that does not meet Rule 7.4(b), and any electronic mail directed to a specific recipient that does not meet Rule 7.6(c). A “prior lawyer-client relationship” does not include one in which the client was an unnamed member of a class action (Rule 7.4(a)). Unsolicited written communications to prospective clients have their own limits and marking rules (Rule 7.4(b)). - Statutes. “It shall be unlawful for any attorney to pay money or give any other thing of value to any person for the purpose of obtaining representation of any client” (La. R.S. 37:219(A)). “No person, firm, or entity shall solicit employment for a legal practitioner,” except a communication governed by Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (La. R.S. 37:219(B)(1)); the section does not prevent a corporation or voluntary association formed for benevolent or charitable purposes and recognized by law from furnishing an attorney to give free assistance to persons without means (37:219(B)(2)). A violation is punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not less than ninety days nor more than five years; a second or later violation, by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars and imprisonment at hard labor for not less than three nor more than fifteen years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for the first five years (37:219(C)). La. R.S. 37:213(A) provides: “No natural person, who has not first been duly and regularly licensed and admitted to practice law by the supreme court of this state, no corporation or voluntary association except a professional law corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 12 of the Revised Statutes, and no partnership or limited liability company except one formed for the practice of law and composed of such natural persons, corporations, voluntary associations, or limited liability companies, all of whom are duly and regularly licensed and admitted to the practice of law, shall:” … “(2) Furnish attorneys or counsel or an attorney and counsel to render legal services.” The same charitable exception applies (37:213(B)). No sheriff, clerk of court, constable, or their deputies, or any police officer or detective, whether commissioned without pay or otherwise, shall procure or solicit any legal business for any attorney at law under the expectation or promise, whether express or implied, of being paid in any manner; violation carries imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than two years, and proof of solicitation or procurement is prima facie evidence that it was done for pecuniary reward (La. R.S. 14:356). A person involved in a traffic accident may state, on a form the office of motor vehicles provides, that the person does not wish to be solicited by specific businesses, which include attorneys, or by any businesses. When the form has been executed and filed with an accident report, soliciting that person by a business about any commercial activity reasonably related to the accident, contrary to the form, is declared an unreasonable invasion of privacy and is prohibited; it carries a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and may be considered a violation of the ethical requirements of any profession or business regulated by a governing body created or recognized by law, subjecting the violator to that body’s sanctions, including suspension or revocation of a license (La. R.S. 32:397.1(C), (G)–(I)). Whoever exacts or receives a fee or gratuity for any services on behalf of a workers’ compensation claimant except in the amount determined by the workers’ compensation judge, solicits the business of appearing before the office on behalf of a claimant, or makes it a business to solicit employment for an attorney in connection with a compensation claim, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than twelve months, or both (La. R.S. 23:1143(A)). No Louisiana statute regulates dividing a fee between lawyers.
Louisiana cases
We state what each decision held, in the words of our research. Later treatment of these decisions has not been searched, apart from what Spears v. Hall (2026) itself says, so do not read this list as a statement that each one remains good law. Spears v. Hall (2026) expressly overruled “any cases upholding agreements that do not comply with Rule 1.5”. It reversed the 2025 court of appeal decision in the same case, and it distinguished Raspanti (2020). Kaster (2025) followed Raspanti before Spears was decided. Whether Kaster or Raspanti still governs any question is not settled by an authority we hold, and neither is stated here as current law on enforcing a fee split that does not comply with Rule 1.5(e).
| Case | Citation | Year | What it held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dugas v. Summers | 339 So. 2d 934 | 1976 | Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against a nonlawyer who sued for his share of fees under a fee-splitting referral arrangement with two lawyers. The trial court had found him a professional “runner”. The arrangement, to the extent it existed, was illegal, against public policy and unenforceable under La. R.S. 37:212 et seq., the matter being governed by R.S. 37:213. |
| Roy v. Gravel | 570 So. 2d 1175 | 1990 | Louisiana Court of Appeal held that the provisions of a law firm dissolution agreement allocating fees from the firm’s contingency fee contracts did not violate Rule 1.5 (decided under the pre-2004 rule). |
| In re P & E Boat Rentals, Inc. (Collins v. Martzell, Thomas & Bickford) | 928 F.2d 662 | 1991 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a footnote quoting the pre-2004 Rule 1.5(e)(1) (“each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation”): whether the fee dispute was decided under the prior Code or the then current Rules, the disposition would be the same. |
| Bertucci v. McIntire | 693 So. 2d 7 | 1997 | Louisiana Court of Appeal held that, because the fee-splitting agreement was not in writing, Rule 1.5(e)(1) (pre-2004 wording) required that the division be in proportion to the services each lawyer performed. |
| In re Watley | 802 So. 2d 593 | 2001 | Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary decision: the record supported the hearing committee’s finding that the respondents violated Rule 5.4(a) by entering into fee-splitting contracts with a nonlawyer. |
| Dukes v. Matheny | 878 So. 2d 517 | 2004 | Louisiana Court of Appeal (First Circuit) held that, without joint representation and a written agreement with the client, any oral agreement to divide a fee could be divided only on a quantum meruit basis (Rule 1.5(e)(1), pre-2004 wording); a referring lawyer who performed no services and assumed no responsibilities was not entitled to any part of the fee (as the Supreme Court read it in Spears v. Hall, 2026). |
| In re Jackson | 1 So. 3d 454 | 2009 | Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with the disciplinary board that the respondent violated Rule 5.4(a), with Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(a)–(c), by practicing law while suspended and sharing legal fees with Mr. Wilson. |
| In re Garrett | 12 So. 3d 332 | 2009 | Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary decision: the arrangement before it “clearly violates the letter and spirit of Rule 5.4(a)”, which provides that a lawyer shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer. |
| In re Toaston | 225 So. 3d 1066 | 2017 | Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary decision in which the hearing committee determined that the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 7.2(c)(13), 8.4(a) and 8.4(c). |
| Raspanti v. Litchfield | No. 2019-CA-0523 | 2020 | Louisiana Court of Appeal (Fourth Circuit) held that Rule 1.5(e) did not apply to the fee agreement between two lawyers who verbally agreed to share a representation’s costs and fees, and treated the dispute as a breach of a joint venture contract (pre-2004 Rule 1.5(e) wording; writs denied 2020). The Louisiana Supreme Court distinguished it in Spears v. Hall (2026). |
| In re Andry | No. 22-30231 | 2023 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a lawyer discipline matter: Rule 1.5(e)(1)’s requirement that the client agree to representation by “all of the lawyers involved” can reasonably be read as all lawyers presently involved, and (e)(3) is written in present terms; it concluded that Rule 1.5(e) is ambiguous as applied to the facts before it. |
| Spears v. Hall | No. 2024-CA-0075 | 2025 | Louisiana Court of Appeal (Fourth Circuit) said that Rule 7.2(c)(13) expressly prohibits attorneys from paying referral fees, and agreed that Rule 1.5(e) was not germane to the fee dispute before it. Reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Spears v. Hall (2026), which held that the lower courts erred in declining to consider the Rules. |
| Kaster, Lynch, Farrar & Ball, LLP v. Meeks & Associates, LLC | No. 2025-CA-0087 | 2025 | Louisiana Court of Appeal (Fourth Circuit) rejected an argument that letting a firm share the contingency fee for all plaintiffs would violate Rule 1.5(e). It found the clients aware of the firm’s work, and followed Raspanti: a purported Rules violation cannot be used to escape paying an earned fee that was contracted for, and alleged violations are for disciplinary counsel. Decided before Spears v. Hall (2026). |
| Spears v. Hall | No. 2025-C-00195 | 2026 | Louisiana Supreme Court held that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to lawyers who form a joint venture to provide legal services. Whether a fee suit between lawyers is framed as contract or fee dispute is immaterial unless they complied with Rule 1.5(e). The lawyer seeking a share had not shown the client’s written agreement to all the lawyers and to each share (1.5(e)(1)), or that he rendered meaningful legal services (1.5(e)(3)). Rule 7.2(c)(13) has no exception for referrals between attorneys. The Court expressly overruled cases upholding agreements that do not comply with Rule 1.5. It reversed the court of appeal and entered judgment for the retained lawyer. |
| In re MMA Law Firm, PLLC | No. 2026-CQ-00161 | 2026 | Louisiana Supreme Court, answering certified questions from a federal district court on facts not found: a contingent fee contract resulting from impermissible paid solicitations, prohibited fee sharing and the unauthorized practice of law is an absolute nullity (citing Rules 5.4(a), 5.5(a), 7.2(c)(13) and 7.4(a)), and Rule 7.4(a) forbids a lawyer to charge or collect a fee for employment obtained in violation of it. |
Louisiana State Bar Association ethics opinions
These are public opinions of the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct Committee. As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched. Opinions 05-RPCC-005, 07-RPCC-015 and 08-RPCC-017 applied the solicitation rule in force before 2009 (then Rule 7.3), whose counterpart today is Rule 7.4.
| Opinion | Year | What it said |
|---|---|---|
| 05-RPCC-005 | 2005 | On lawyers giving hotline advice after Hurricane Katrina: the then Rule 7.3 (today’s 7.4) prohibits in-person and person-to-person telephone solicitation when a significant motive is the lawyer’s own pecuniary gain. |
| 07-RPCC-013 | 2007 | On lawyers sharing office space: any agreement between them to share fees must comport with Rule 1.5(e), which requires the client to consent in writing to a joint representation and to be advised in writing of each lawyer’s share. |
| 07-RPCC-015 | 2007 | On gifts to clients, applying the pre-2009 solicitation rule (Rule 7.3(a), today’s 7.4(a)): a lawyer may not solicit professional employment in person, by person-to-person telephone contact, or through others acting at the lawyer’s request or on the lawyer’s behalf. |
| 08-RPCC-017 | 2008 | On sharing office space with nonlawyers: a lawyer cannot normally share legal fees with nonlawyers or let a nonlawyer share in the practice as a partner or business associate (Rule 5.4). The pre-2009 solicitation rule (today’s 7.4) bars solicitation through others acting on the lawyer’s behalf. |
| 12-RPCC-018 | 2012 | On sharing fees with suspended or disbarred lawyers: for any agreement to divide fees between lawyers not in the same firm, the threshold inquiry is compliance with Rule 1.5(e). A suspended or disbarred lawyer cannot render meaningful legal services in the matter as 1.5(e)(3) requires. The opinion also cites Rules 5.4(a) and 7.2(c)(13). |
| 12-RPCC-019 | 2012 | On accepting credit cards for fees and costs: the Committee did not believe the practice it addressed constitutes impermissible sharing of a legal fee with a nonlawyer under Rule 5.4, and knew of no authority to the contrary. |
What our research did not find
- Spears v. Hall (La. 2026) expressly overruled “any cases upholding agreements that do not comply with Rule 1.5”. It reversed the 2025 court of appeal decision in the same case, and it distinguished Raspanti (2020). Kaster (2025) followed Raspanti before Spears was decided. Whether Kaster or Raspanti still governs any question is not settled by an authority we hold. This page does not present either as current law on enforcing a fee split that does not comply with Rule 1.5(e).
- The order adopting the 2004 revision of the Rules (effective March 1, 2004) and the 2008 order carrying the rewrite of the 7-series rules to October 1, 2009 are not held. Most current rule versions carry no effective date, and Rule 1.5(e)(1)–(3) has two undated versions. This page uses the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board’s current compilation. Roy (1990), P & E (1991), Bertucci (1997) and Dukes (2004) applied the pre-2004 Rule 1.5(e), and their holdings are stated as theirs.
- The solicitation rule in force before 2009 (old Rule 7.3, with old Rule 7.2) was not loaded as its own text. Opinions 05-RPCC-005, 07-RPCC-015 and 08-RPCC-017 applied it, and are linked here to today’s Rule 7.4.
- No Louisiana decision or ethics opinion applying Rule 8.5(b) to a fee-division, referral or solicitation question was found (searched October 20, 2026). In re Vega (2018) applies Rule 8.5(b)(2) to other misconduct; it was captured but not verified, so it is not relied on here.
- Of La. R.S. 37:213(A), only (A)(2) is held as its own text. In re MMA Law Firm (2026) cites 37:213A(1) and (4), whose words are not held, so this page does not state them. Dugas (1976) applied the statute as it read then.
- No court of appeal’s own copies were obtainable; every decision here was read from a CourtListener copy. Twelve cited leads are unread.
- No Louisiana statute regulating the division of a fee between lawyers was found (searched October 20, 2026). The statutes above address furnishing lawyers, paying to obtain clients, and solicitation.
- Later treatment of every Louisiana authority on this page has not been searched, apart from what Spears v. Hall (2026) itself says. This page states what each authority held, not that it remains good law.
Frequently asked questions
Can I share a referral fee with a lawyer in Louisiana?
Not for the referral alone. Under Rule 1.5(e) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, a fee may be divided between lawyers who are not in the same firm only if the client agrees in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved and is advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive, the total fee is reasonable, and each lawyer renders meaningful legal services for the client in the matter. In Spears v. Hall (2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court said that Rule 7.2(c)(13), which bars giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, contains no exception for referrals between attorneys, and that sharing fees purely for referrals violates it.
Is there a cap on referral fees in Louisiana?
Rule 1.5(e) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the total fee be reasonable and that each lawyer render meaningful legal services for the client in the matter. In Spears v. Hall (2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court read Rule 1.5(e)(3) as meant to make a fee split reflect each lawyer’s actual contribution rather than a referral fee or nominal participation.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Louisiana?
Yes, in every division. Rule 1.5(e)(1) requires that the client agree in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved and be advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive. In Spears v. Hall (2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that whether a fee suit between lawyers is framed as a contract or a fee dispute is immaterial unless they complied with Rule 1.5(e), and it expressly overruled “any cases upholding agreements that do not comply with Rule 1.5”.
Can a Louisiana lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
Louisiana’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 8.5(b), tracks ABA Model Rule 8.5(b). For a matter before a tribunal, the rules of the tribunal’s jurisdiction apply unless its rules provide otherwise; for other conduct, the rules where the conduct occurred apply, or the rules where its predominant effect is. No Louisiana statute, decision or ethics opinion we hold chooses the law for a fee-division, referral or solicitation question, so which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral into or out of Louisiana is not settled by an authority we hold.
Sources
- Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.5, 5.4, 7.2, 7.4, 8.5), Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board compilation (amendments through May 10, 2023), fetched October 20, 2026: ladb.org
- Louisiana Revised Statutes, fetched from legis.la.gov October 20, 2026: La. R.S. 37:213, La. R.S. 37:219, La. R.S. 14:356, La. R.S. 32:397.1, La. R.S. 23:1143
- Cases and ethics opinions: linked in the tables above.
More states: Referral fee rules by state.
Disclaimer
This page summarizes a state’s rules on dividing fees between lawyers, from the primary sources it cites, as of the dates shown. It is general information for lawyers, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Rose Law Firm, PLLC dba LegalFlare. Rules and the way courts and bar authorities read them change. Read the cited sources, and check with the state bar or your own counsel, before relying on anything here.