ETHICS OPINION 258-1927

ETHICS OPINION 258

NUMBER 258 1927

Question. X retains A, an attorney to prosecute a negligence action. A retains B, another attorney, to handle the action as counsel.

Subsequently, but during the pendency of the action, B is retained directly as attorney by relatives and friends of X as a result of X’s direct recommendation of B as an attorney. These relatives and friends never were clients of A and never had any correspondence, transactions, or conferences of any kind whatsoever with A. In fact, they never met and did not know of each other’s existence.

The question at issue is the propriety of B’s accepting a retainer from X’s relatives and friends under such circumstances.

Another question, from that situation, is whether under such circumstances B should pay any part of the fees to A.

Answer. It does not appear from the question that the rights involved in the new employment are in any way related to the cause of action of X. In the absence of any facts, not disclosed by the question, which would make the second employment inimical to the interests of X, or an interference with the rights of A, the Committee recognizes no impropriety in the acceptance of the second employment, and no obligation to A to pay him any part of the fees therefor.