Short answer. Tennessee lets lawyers in different firms divide a fee only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client agrees to the arrangement, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)). 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 Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct (Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8) on the Tennessee courts’ Rule 8 page, read from an Internet Archive copy captured October 10, 2025, fetched and compared with the live page on October 20, 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
Tennessee’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | Tennessee’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 1.5(e), Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8) | Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5(e) |
| Written client consent | Required in every division: the client agrees to the arrangement, and the agreement is confirmed in writing | Rule 1.5(e)(2) |
| Notice to the client | The client must agree to the arrangement; the rule does not require that the client be told the share each lawyer receives | Rule 1.5(e)(2) |
| Proportion to services or joint responsibility | Required: the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation | Rule 1.5(e)(1) |
| Reasonable total fee | Required | Rule 1.5(e)(3) |
| Cap on the secondary lawyer’s share | None stated in Rule 1.5(e) | Rule 1.5(e) |
| Statutes | Not obtained in our research; leads named but not read: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 23-3-101 and 23-3-103 | Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 23-3-101, 23-3-103 (not obtained) |
What Rule 1.5(e) says
Rule 1.5(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, in force since January 1, 2011 (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5(e)):
(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;
(2) the client agrees to the arrangement, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
The words of Rule 1.5(e) in force from 2003 to 2010 are not held in our research.
What the client must agree to in writing
Every division needs the client’s agreement to the arrangement, confirmed in writing (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). Unlike ABA Model Rule 1.5(e)(2), Tennessee’s rule does not require that the client agree to the share each lawyer will receive.
Two Tennessee Court of Appeals decisions found the written confirmation missing and still did not bar the lawyer’s fee. In Cordova v. Nashville Ready Mix, Inc., No. M2018-02002-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020), it was undisputed that the lawyer did not obtain the clients’ written consent to a fee-sharing agreement with another lawyer; the Court held that his violation of the rule did not preclude him from recovering a reasonable fee as set forth in the fee agreement. In Coleman v. Coleman, No. W2012-02183-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013), it was undisputed that the referring firm did not confirm the referral fee in writing to the client; the Court agreed with the trial court that any ethical transgression was not “flagrant” and the client suffered no prejudice.
What must be disclosed to the client
The client must agree to the arrangement (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). The rule does not require that the client be told the share each lawyer receives.
Proportionality or joint responsibility
A division is allowed only if it is in proportion to the services each lawyer performs, or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation (Rule 1.5(e)(1)), and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)(3)). Tennessee’s Rule 1.5(e)(1) does not itself ask for a written agreement for joint responsibility; Rule 1.5(e)(2)’s written confirmation applies to every division.
In Coleman v. Coleman (2013), a fee dispute between two firms, the trial court held that the division of fees between them was not proportional; the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that any ethical transgression was not “flagrant” and the client suffered no prejudice.
Referring a case out of Tennessee, or into it
Tennessee’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 8.5(b), follows ABA Model Rule 8.5(b)(1) and (2). Unlike the Model Rule, it has no safe harbor for a lawyer who reasonably believes the predominant effect of the conduct will occur in a jurisdiction whose rules the conduct conforms to. It says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when Tennessee exercises its disciplinary authority (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 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.
The date these words of Rule 8.5(b) took effect is not established in our sources.
In Hancock v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 447 S.W.3d 844 (Tenn. 2014), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the standards of professional conduct applicable to a lawyer’s conduct in a bankruptcy matter derived from Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, citing RPC 8.5(b)(1), not Bankruptcy Rule 9003(a).
No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral. No Board of Professional Responsibility ethics opinion applying Rule 8.5(b) was found.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. “A lawyer shall not compensate, give, or promise anything of value to a person who is not an employee or lawyer in the same law firm for the purpose of recommending or securing the services of the lawyer or the lawyer’s law firm,” except as Rule 7.3(f)(1)–(5) allows: paying the reasonable cost of advertisements and other communications permitted by RPC 7.1, including online group advertising; paying the usual charges of an intermediary organization as permitted by RPC 7.6; paying for a law practice in accordance with RPC 1.17; paying a sponsorship fee or a contribution to a charitable or other non-profit organization in return for which the lawyer will be given publicity as a lawyer; and referring clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional under an agreement not otherwise prohibited under the Rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if the reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive and the client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement (Rule 7.3(f)).
- Nonlawyers. A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except as Rule 5.4(a)(1)–(6) allows: under an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner or associate, 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 purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled or disappeared lawyer paying, under RPC 1.17, the agreed-upon purchase price to that lawyer’s estate or other representative; including nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement; sharing a court-awarded fee with a client represented in the matter or with a non-profit organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter; a lawyer who is a full-time employee of a client sharing a legal fee with the client to the extent necessary to reimburse the client for the actual cost to the client of permitting the lawyer to represent another client while continuing in the client’s full-time employ; and, under Rule 5.4(a)(6), “a lawyer may pay to a non-profit intermediary organization a referral fee calculated by reference to a reasonable percentage of the fee paid to the lawyer by the client referred to the lawyer by the non-profit intermediary organization.”
- Dates and earlier wording. The dates the words of Rules 5.4(a) and 7.3(f) took effect are not established in our sources. Our research holds two undated versions of Rules 5.4(a)(6) and 7.3(f)(2); this page quotes the words on the current Rule 8 page. The earlier wording said “registered” intermediary organization.
- Statutes. Our research could not obtain the Tennessee Code. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 23-3-101 and 23-3-103 were named as leads but not read, so this page does not state what they say. This page does not say Tennessee has no statute on referrals or solicitation.
Tennessee cases
We state what each decision held, in the words of our research. Later treatment of these decisions has not been searched, so do not read this list as a statement that each one remains good law. Rule 1.5(e)’s current words took effect January 1, 2011, and the earlier words are not held; Glassman (2009) construed earlier wording, and its holding is its own.
| Case | Citation | Year | What it held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt, P.C. v. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP | 601 F. Supp. 2d 991 | 2009 | Federal district court decision, before the current Rule 1.5(e) took effect on January 1, 2011: Rule 1.5(e) did not require the client’s written consent to a fee division in proportion to services, and a lack of the clients’ consent to the fee-sharing agreement would not prohibit an attorney from recovering fees against another attorney under it. |
| Coleman v. Coleman | No. W2012-02183-COA-R3-CV | 2013 | Tennessee Court of Appeals, in a fee dispute between two firms: the trial court held the division of fees between them was not proportional, and it was undisputed that the referring firm did not confirm the referral fee in writing to the client; the Court agreed with the trial court that any ethical transgression was not “flagrant” and the client suffered no prejudice. |
| Hancock v. Board of Professional Responsibility | 447 S.W.3d 844 | 2014 | Tennessee Supreme Court held that the standards of professional conduct applicable to a lawyer’s conduct in a bankruptcy matter derived from Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, citing RPC 8.5(b)(1), not Bankruptcy Rule 9003(a). |
| Cordova v. Nashville Ready Mix, Inc. | No. M2018-02002-COA-R3-CV | 2020 | Tennessee Court of Appeals: it was undisputed that the lawyer did not obtain the clients’ written consent to a fee-sharing agreement with another lawyer; the Court held that his violation of the rule did not preclude him from recovering a reasonable fee as set forth in the fee agreement. |
Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility ethics opinions
No Board of Professional Responsibility ethics opinion applying Rule 1.5(e), 5.4(a), 7.3(f) or 8.5(b) was found (searched October 20, 2026). The Board’s fee-division and fee-sharing opinions apply the former Code of Professional Responsibility and are not cited here.
What our research did not find
- The Tennessee Code is not held: every code host refused automated access on October 20, 2026, so no section could be fetched or read. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 23-3-101 and 23-3-103 were named as leads but not read. This page does not say Tennessee has no statute on referrals or solicitation.
- No Board of Professional Responsibility ethics opinion applying Rule 1.5(e), 5.4(a), 7.3(f) or 8.5(b) was found. The Board’s fee-division and fee-sharing opinions apply the former Code of Professional Responsibility and are not loaded in our research (searched October 20, 2026).
- No Tennessee decision under Rule 5.4(a) or 7.3(f) was found (searched October 20, 2026).
- Rule 1.5(e) is stated as in force since January 1, 2011. The 2003–2010 wording is not held, so Glassman (2009) construed earlier wording, and its holding is stated as its own. Rules 5.4(a), 7.3(f) and 8.5(b) carry no effective date in our research (the 2022 orders are not held). For Rules 5.4(a)(6) and 7.3(f)(2) our research holds two undated versions; this page uses the current page’s words. The earlier wording said “registered” intermediary organization.
- The Rule 8 text is held only as Internet Archive copies of the Tennessee courts’ Rule 8 page, compared with the live page on October 20, 2026.
- Later treatment of every Tennessee authority on this page has not been searched. 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 Tennessee?
Yes, under Rule 1.5(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct (Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8). A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client agrees to the arrangement, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable.
Is there a cap on referral fees in Tennessee?
Rule 1.5(e) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the total fee be reasonable, and that the division be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or that each lawyer assume joint responsibility for the representation. The Tennessee Code could not be obtained in our research, so this page does not say whether any statute bears on a division.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Tennessee?
Yes, in every division. Rule 1.5(e)(2) requires that the client agree to the arrangement and that the agreement be confirmed in writing. Unlike ABA Model Rule 1.5(e)(2), Tennessee’s rule does not require that the client agree to the share each lawyer will receive. In Coleman v. Coleman (2013) and Cordova v. Nashville Ready Mix (2020), the Tennessee Court of Appeals found the written confirmation missing and still did not bar the lawyer’s fee.
Can a Tennessee lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
Tennessee’s Rule 8.5(b) says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when Tennessee exercises its disciplinary authority. In Hancock v. Board of Professional Responsibility (2014), the Tennessee Supreme Court held, citing Rule 8.5(b)(1), that the standards of professional conduct applicable to a lawyer’s conduct in a bankruptcy matter derived from Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, not Bankruptcy Rule 9003(a). No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.
Sources
- Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8 (Rules 1.5, 5.4, 7.3, 8.5), read from an Internet Archive copy (captured October 10, 2025) of the Tennessee courts’ Rule 8 page, fetched October 20, 2026: tncourts.gov, Rule 8
- Cases: linked in the table 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.