Lawyer Referrals & Co-Counsel Relationships That You Can Trust
When a case is bigger than your calendar, outside your practice area, or in a state where you are not admitted, referring it or associating co-counsel keeps the client well served and keeps you in the matter. The rules that govern how a fee is then divided differ in every state we practise in, and getting the paperwork wrong can make an otherwise fair agreement unenforceable.
Vaksman Khalfin, PC accepts referrals and serves as co-counsel in California, Nevada, and New York. This page sets out what each state’s rule actually requires. It is written for attorneys, and it is general information rather than legal or ethics advice for your situation.
Benefits Of Lawyer Referral With Vaksman Khalfin
Experienced
With a team of 12 expert attorneys and a presence in California, Nevada, and New York, we are ready to provide exceptional legal representation for your clients in Personal Injury, Estate Planning, Business Law, Real Estate, Employment Law, and Civil Litigation.
Committed
From navigating trials to optimizing settlements, our team has a proven track record of success. Also, we prioritize client care. Our unwavering dedication ensures that clients receive not only successful outcomes in trials and settlements, but also unparalleled support and care throughout the course of their civil lawsuit.
Transparent
Partnering with Vaksman Khalfin, PC will enable you to monitor the progress of referred cases. We ensure real-time updates on case developments and accurate tracking of referral or co-counsel fees.
How Do Attorney Referral Fees Work in California, Nevada, and New York?
All three states permit lawyers in different firms to divide a fee, and all three require the client’s agreement confirmed in writing. They differ on what else is needed. California Rule 1.5.1 requires a written agreement between the lawyers plus the client’s written consent after full written disclosure, and the total fee may not be increased solely because of the division. Nevada Rule 1.5(e) requires only client agreement confirmed in writing and a reasonable total fee — subsection (1) is reserved. New York Rule 1.5(g) requires the division to be in proportion to services performed, or that each lawyer assume joint responsibility by a writing given to the client.
Key Takeaways
- California requires the fee-division agreement between the lawyers to be in writing — Nevada and New York do not say so expressly.
- Nevada’s Rule 1.5(e)(1) is reserved, so there is no proportionality or joint-responsibility requirement.
- New York is the strictest of the three: a division must track services performed, or joint responsibility must be assumed in a writing given to the client.
- Client consent must be confirmed in writing in all three states.
- Timing differs: California ties consent to when the lawyers make their agreement, not to the end of the case.
The Three Rules Side by Side
| California — Rule 1.5.1 | Nevada — Rule 1.5(e) | New York — Rule 1.5(g) | |
| Written agreement between the lawyers | Required | Not expressly required | Not expressly required |
| Proportionality or joint responsibility | Not required by the rule | Subsection (1) is reserved | Required — in proportion to services, or joint responsibility by a writing given to the client |
| Client consent | Consented in writing, after full written disclosure | Client agrees, agreement confirmed in writing | Client agrees to employment of the other lawyer after full disclosure, agreement confirmed in writing |
| What must be disclosed | That a division will be made; the identity of the lawyers or firms; the terms of the division | The arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive | That a division will be made, including the share each lawyer will receive |
| Limit on the total fee | Not increased solely by reason of the agreement to divide | Total fee is reasonable | Total fee is not excessive |
California: Rule 1.5.1
California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5.1 governs fee divisions among lawyers who are not in the same law firm. It took effect November 1, 2018, replacing former Rule 2-200, and it applies to pure referral arrangements as well as to cases where the lawyers share the work.
Under Rule 1.5.1(a), lawyers who are not in the same law firm shall not divide a fee for legal services unless:
- the lawyers enter into a written agreement to divide the fee;
- the client has consented in writing, either at the time the lawyers enter into the agreement to divide the fee or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable, after a full written disclosure to the client of (i) the fact that a division of fees will be made, (ii) the identity of the lawyers or law firms that are parties to the division, and (iii) the terms of the division; and
- the total fee charged by all lawyers is not increased solely by reason of the agreement to divide fees.
Rule 1.5.1(b) provides that the rule does not apply to a division of fees pursuant to court order.
Two points are worth drawing out for referring counsel. The written agreement between the lawyers is a California-specific requirement, and it was one of the changes Rule 1.5.1 introduced. And the timing changed: consent is tied to when the lawyers make their fee-division agreement, not to when the fee is eventually divided at the end of a case.
Nevada: Rule 1.5(e)
Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) provides that a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
- Reserved;
- the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and
- the total fee is reasonable.
The word “Reserved” in subsection (1) is doing real work. Where the ABA Model Rule and most states require the division to be in proportion to services performed or the lawyers to assume joint responsibility, Nevada’s rule contains no such condition. What remains is client agreement confirmed in writing, and a total fee that is reasonable under Rule 1.5(a).
That makes Nevada one of the more permissive of the three jurisdictions on this point, and it is a difference worth knowing if you practise across state lines rather than assuming the Model Rule applies everywhere.
New York: Rule 1.5(g)
New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(g) provides that a lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not associated in the same law firm unless:
- the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by a writing given to the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;
- the client agrees to employment of the other lawyer after a full disclosure that a division of fees will be made, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the client’s agreement is confirmed in writing; and
- the total fee is not excessive.
Rule 1.5(h) provides that Rule 1.5(g) does not prohibit payment to a lawyer formerly associated in a law firm pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement.
New York is the strictest of the three on the first element. A division that does not track the services each lawyer performed requires joint responsibility, assumed by a writing given to the client. Joint responsibility carries financial and ethical responsibility for the representation, which is a real commitment rather than a formality.
What This Means in Practice for Referring Counsel
Three practical points follow from the comparison.
Do the paperwork at the front end. All three states require the client’s agreement to be confirmed in writing, and California requires the lawyers’ own agreement to be in writing too. California case law has declined to enforce fee-sharing agreements where the disclosure and written consent requirements were not met, so this is not a technicality that gets cured later.
Identify which state’s rule governs before you paper the deal. A referral arrangement that satisfies Nevada’s rule may not satisfy New York’s, because New York requires proportionality or joint responsibility and Nevada does not. Where a matter or the lawyers span more than one jurisdiction, that question is worth settling at the outset.
Decide what “joint responsibility” means for you. In New York, it is the alternative to a proportional split, and it brings responsibility for the representation with it. That is a decision about exposure, not just about paperwork.
How We Work With Referring Counsel
We accept referrals and serve as co-counsel in personal injury, trust and estate, business, real estate, employment, and civil litigation matters across California, Nevada, and New York. Depending on what a referring attorney prefers, that can mean taking a matter over entirely, or working alongside you with the division of work agreed at the start.
What we commit to:
- The client comes first. A referred client receives the same attention as any other client of the firm.
- The paperwork is done properly and early, under the rule of the governing jurisdiction, with the client’s written consent obtained when the rule requires it rather than at the end.
- Your relationship is respected. We do not solicit a referring attorney’s other clients, and we do not use a referral as an entry point to a practice.
- You are kept informed. Referring counsel receives updates on the matter’s progress on whatever cadence you prefer.
Our practice areas are set out on our California personal injury, California trust and estate, California business law, Nevada personal injury, Nevada trust and estate, New York personal injury, and New York trust and estate pages.
Where We Are Admitted
Alan D. Khalfin, Partner and Managing Attorney, is admitted in California and works from our San Mateo office. Robert B. Vaksman, Partner, is admitted in Nevada and New York, holds a Master of Laws in Taxation from New York University School of Law, and works with clients through our Las Vegas and New York City offices.
To discuss a referral or a co-counsel arrangement, call 877-780-4727 or schedule a call.
This page provides general information about the professional conduct rules in California, Nevada, and New York and is not legal or ethics advice; reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Rules are amended from time to time and should be confirmed against the current text before you rely on them. Every matter is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Reviewed by Alan D. Khalfin, Partner and Managing Attorney (admitted in California), and Robert B. Vaksman, Partner (admitted in Nevada and New York), Vaksman Khalfin, PC. Last reviewed: 08/24/2026
Attorney Referral and Co-Counsel Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, subject to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5.1. Lawyers who are not in the same firm may divide a fee where they enter into a written agreement to divide it, the client consents in writing after full written disclosure of the fact of the division, the identity of the lawyers or firms, and its terms, and the total fee is not increased solely because of the agreement to divide.
Yes. Rule 1.5.1(a)(1) requires the lawyers to enter into a written agreement to divide the fee. This was one of the changes introduced when Rule 1.5.1 replaced former Rule 2-200 effective November 1, 2018.
Under Rule 1.5.1(a)(2), either at the time the lawyers enter into the agreement to divide the fee or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. Consent is tied to the making of the fee-division agreement rather than to the point at which the fee is actually divided.
No. Nevada Rule 1.5(e)(1) is reserved. What the rule requires is that the client agrees to the arrangement including the share each lawyer will receive, that the agreement is confirmed in writing, and that the total fee is reasonable.
Under Rule 1.5(g), the division must be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer must assume joint responsibility for the representation by a writing given to the client. The client must agree to employment of the other lawyer after full disclosure including the share each lawyer will receive, with agreement confirmed in writing, and the total fee must not be excessive.
New York's rule does not permit a division untethered from either proportionality or joint responsibility. Where a referring lawyer will not perform proportional services, the alternative under Rule 1.5(g)(1) is to assume joint responsibility for the representation by a writing given to the client.
These rules govern divisions between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Fee sharing with non-lawyers is addressed by separate rules in each jurisdiction and is not what this page covers.
None of the three rules sets a percentage cap. Each instead limits the total fee — California provides that it may not be increased solely by reason of the agreement to divide, Nevada requires that the total fee be reasonable, and New York requires that it not be excessive.
California courts have declined to enforce fee-sharing agreements where the required disclosure and written client consent were not obtained. The practical consequence is that a referring lawyer who relies on an informal understanding may have no enforceable claim to the fee.
Call 877-780-4727 or schedule a call through the website. We will discuss the matter, which jurisdiction's rule governs, and how the arrangement should be documented before any work begins.
SUBMIT YOUR CONTACT DETAILS Let's talk about your referral and co-counsel needs Your referral needs