However, in a shrinking world, creativity in structuring international law firm relationships so as to advance clients' interests at home and abroad should not be met with suspicion or undue obstacles, provided of course that participating New Jersey lawyers meet their ethical obligations. The inquirer asked whether the proposed year-end pooling and sharing of profits as described in the agreement constitutes a fee division. The inquirer submits that the proposed profit sharing is distinguishable from fee sharing. Ethical regulation of fee sharing is grounded in a concern for protecting clients, by insuring that in arriving at the total fee, the participating law firms do not submit parts which in sum exceed the whole. The premise is that the client should be charged only one overall fair and reasonable fee, calculated upon the totality of professional services rendered and responsibility assumed.
Profits are another matter.
They depend not only on total fees received over a period of time, but also on other income and the expenses attendant to the business of the firm's practice, turning on efficiency, methods of operation, and many other factors. For example, law firms may and do share their profits with non-lawyer employees under various forms of pension and profit sharing plans. They may also share profits with their non partner lawyers. Although the New Jersey Supreme Court did not formally adopt the official ABA Comments to the Model Rules, those comments do provide guidance in interpreting the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. Profit sharing in and of itself does not present the risk of overreaching that can be present with fee sharing.