“SBM issues ethics opinion on handling files after attorney and client part ways” —

• “The State Bar of Michigan’s Standing Committee on Professional Ethics issued a new ethics opinion offering guidelines on how to handle the disposition of files when a lawyer-client relationship is terminated. “
• “The opinion, RI-392, was issued December 12, 2025, and builds upon Formal Opinion R-19, issued in 2000. The new opinion focuses on what exactly a client is entitled to receive upon the termination of representation. “
• “‘Among other things, R-19 opined that a client’s right is one of access rather than possession or ownership. While R-19 provided helpful guidance on the subject of lawyer files, several questions persist: What does ‘access’ to the files mean? To what portions of the lawyer’s file does a client have a right of ‘access’? How many times must ‘access’ be granted? These and related questions were not answered specifically in R-19 but frequently arise in the context of termination of a lawyer’s representation,’ RI-392 states. “
• “The new opinion goes on to break down various aspects of file disposition after termination of client-attorney relationships, including the following:
  • Proper means of giving access
  • Providing paper vs electronic copies
  • Scope of information to which access must be given
  • Charging for copies
  • Record retention
  • Multiple copy requests
  • Damaged files
  • Disposition of files upon a lawyer’s retirement
  • Attorney liens “
• “You can read the full opinion here. “

With aluminum poles coming out of crawlspaces everywhere, Jeff Cunningham noted: NYSB Ethics Opinion 1288:

• “A Festivus present from the New York Bar! NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1288 just dropped in time for the Feats of Strength!”
• “No, an irreovcable trust can’t own a portion of your law firm since trusts aren’t lawyers!”
  • “The proposed estate plan, which seeks to create an irrevocable trust that would hold the client’s minority shareholder ownership interest in the professional corporation upon his death for the benefit of an attorney employee in that firm, is not permissible under Rule 5.4(a), (b), and (d), because a trust is a nonlawyer that is not authorized to practice law, and a lawyer may not practice law or share legal fees with a nonlawyer not authorized to practice law.”
• Opinion: here.

“Ethics Opinion 1289: Entity owned and operated by attorney that provides law-related services. Splitting fees from law-related services with nonlawyers. Paying referral fees to attorney owner of law-related entity” —

• When an attorney owns or controls an entity that provides nonlegal services, the attorney must comply with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the entity’s provision of nonlegal services if any of the entity’s customers could reasonably believe (even if mistakenly) that the entity’s nonlegal services are the subject of a client-lawyer relationship. If the attorney avoids that misimpression, including by providing the entity’s customers with a disclaimer that complies with Rule 5.7(a)(4), then the attorney may permit the entity to provide a percentage of its revenue to a nonlawyer who provides services to the entity. In that event, the attorney may also permit the entity to pay a referral fee to an attorney from outside the entity who refers a client to the entity, unless the attorney who owns or controls the entity knows that a referring attorney is forbidden by Rule 1.7 or other law from accepting a referral fee or is not obtaining the necessary consent from the referring attorney’s client.
• Opinion: here.

“Nonlawyer Control, Not‑for‑Profit Law Firms, and Authorized Business Entities: Commentary on the 2025 Amendments to Florida Rule 4‑8.6” —

• “On December 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida issued a per curiam opinion in In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Rule 4‑8.6, approving a series of amendments to Rule 4‑8.6, which governs ‘Authorized Business Entities’ through which Florida lawyers may practice law.”
• “The petition originated with The Florida Bar and was approved by its Board of Governors. Pursuant to Rule 1‑12.1(g) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, notice was published in The Florida Bar News inviting public comment. No comments were filed, and the Court adopted the proposed amendments with only ‘minor modification.'”
• “The amendments, effective February 16, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., clarify:”
  • “That lawyers may practice in not‑for‑profit authorized business entities, alongside traditional for‑profit structures.”
  • “The permissible roles of nonlawyers and out‑of‑state lawyers in the ownership, governance, and management of entities engaged in the practice of law in Florida.”
  • “That only persons legally qualified to render legal services in Florida may direct the legal services or professional judgment of a Florida lawyer.”
• “Although the opinion is short and largely administrative, its amendments carry significant regulatory and structural implications for Florida law firms, legal aid organizations, and multijurisdictional practices. The Court also re‑affirms the long‑standing principle that even when the Legislature creates business forms for professionals, the Supreme Court must affirmatively authorize lawyers to use those forms in the practice of law. “