Opinion ID: 3052575
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unlawful fee-splitting

Text: Appellants claim Harris and his firm breached their fiduciary duty by entering into the May and September 2001 “corporate resolutions” under which Harris and McPherson would share the contingency fee. They claim the agreement violated RPC § 5.4(a), which prohibits a lawyer or law firm from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.11 The district court made no finding as to whether the May and September 2001 agreements violated RPC § 5.4(a). 10 Appellants also alleged Appellees violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020 et seq., and committed legal malpractice. The district court entered judgment in Appellee attorneys’ favor on those claims; Appellants have abandoned those claims on appeal. 11 RPC § 5.4 provides various exceptions to this rule; no party contends any of these exceptions apply here. 10266 BERTELSEN v. HARRIS