道德意见303

无关联澳博app共享办公空间和服务

无关联澳博app可以共享办公空间和相关服务，只要此类共享安排不损害每名澳博app客户信息的保密性, 每个澳博app的独立性, 以及每位澳博app各自遵守《澳博app下载网》的义务. 除了, the sharing arrangements must be structured in a way that does not suggest to the public that the lawyers are affiliated when they are not.

适用的规则

• 规则1.6(信息保密)
• 规则1.7(利益冲突)
• 规则1.10(推定不合格)
• 规则7.1(关于澳博app服务的来文)
• 规则7.5(公司名称及信头)

调查

本委员会的任务是处理两名或两名以上澳博app同意共享办公空间和/或办公服务而不成立澳博app事务所或以其他方式将其业务联系起来时出现的道德问题. 当单独执业者从澳博app事务所租用办公空间和/或服务时，也会出现类似的问题. 就像其他考虑过这个问题的司法管辖区一样, 我们的结论是，非附属澳博app可以共享办公空间和/或办公室服务，但必须遵守个人澳博app的持续义务，遵守职业行为规则.

讨论

它已经变得越来越普遍, 尤其是在像哥伦比亚特区这样的高成本大都市地区, 让澳博app在共用的办公套房里执业, 经常使用共用的办公室人员和设施. 通过这样的共享安排, 一名个人澳博app的前台管理费用, 支持人员, 会议室, 库, 复印机及传真机, and the like can be proportionately reduced by the financial contributions of the other attorneys participating in the arrangement. 这些经济效益, 反过来, 帮助澳博app为客户提供具有成本效益的法律服务.

正如其他司法管辖区所承认的那样¹ 我们确认, 职业行为规则中没有规定禁止澳博app共用办公空间, 人员, 设备, 或费用. 然而, 虽然这种共享安排可能提供不可否认的经济利益, they also have the potential to create ethical problems that must be recognized and avoided by all attorneys participating in the arrangement.

公共混乱

无关联澳博app共享办公室的安排会造成公众混淆的风险，即在没有这种专业关系的情况下，参与这种安排的澳博app实际上是相互关联的. D.C. 职业行为准则.1 provides that “a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.” This proscription applies to both material misrepresentations and material omissions about the lawyer’s services, 包括澳博app的专业关系.

向公众传达的信息, 或明或暗, about the nature of an office- and/or service-sharing arrangement between attorneys are fully subject to 规则7.1，必须遵守其条款. 例如, 如果澳博app, B和C are in an office-sharing arrangement that is identified on common 信头 as “The A澳博app事务所, B和C,，那么公众会很自然地认为A, B和C在共同执业中互为关联. 看到 D.C. 职业行为准则.5(d), 评论[2](“澳博app共用办公设施, 但实际上他们并不是合作伙伴, 可以不把自己命名为, 例如, 史密斯和琼斯, 因为这个标题暗示着法律实践中的合伙关系。”. 如果没有这种关系, 公众会对这些澳博app之间关系的真实性质产生误解.²

同样，如果独立澳博appA从澳博app事务所B租用场地和服务，C & D and the only sign in the vicinity of the office identifies the facilities as “The Law Firm of B, C & D,” then the public would quite naturally assume that attorney A is affiliated with the law firm of B, C & D. 再一次, 公众会对这些澳博app之间关系的真实性质产生误解. 为了避免这种潜在的混淆, 所有共享办公室的澳博app都应该在办公室入口的显著位置展示标牌，准确描述在该空间内运作的独立法律业务的性质. 看到 维吉尼亚Commw. 酒吧Cmte. 在道德 & 教授. Op. 874(1987)(与澳博app事务所共用办公室的单独执业澳博app应确保标志和目录表明澳博app的单独执业和与澳博app事务所没有联系).

Another source of public confusion about office-sharing arrangements is the manner in which shared office telephones are answered. 接待员在接听公用办公室电话时说:“早上好。, A澳博app事务所, B和C” disseminates the same misleading message to the public as the 信头 example discussed above. 这样更好, 当然, for the sharing attorneys to have separate tele电话线路 that could be answered individually in the name of each attorney by the shared receptionist, 但这可能并不总是可行的. 当它不是, 共用接待员在接听办公室电话的方式或在没有关系的情况下暗示澳博app之间存在关系的任何其他行为上都必须谨慎. 以避免任何暗示个人澳博app之间的联系, 在接听普通电话时，正确的问候语应该是“澳博app事务所”.” 看,e.g., 俄亥俄州伦理行动. 95-1 (1995); 康涅狄格 Ethics Op. 89-3 (1989); 罗德岛州道德行动. 88-5 (1988).

Attorneys involved in an office-sharing arrangement must ensure that in all communications made about the nature of their practice, 公众并不困惑, 欺骗或误导，有任何公司, 伙伴关系, 企业, “澳博app关系”或澳博app之间不存在的其他关系.³ 至少, 这包括避免使用任何书面交流——比如信笺, 名片, 办公室的迹象, or advertisements—that combine or link the practices of the sharing attorneys in a manner suggestive of an actual affiliation. 看到 ABA正式Op. 310 (1963). If a potential client appears confused about the relationship among the attorneys in such an arrangement, 澳博app应该采取措施来解决这种困惑, including making an affirmative disclaimer of any affiliation with the other attorneys in the shared office space.

客户保密

在无关联澳博app之间的办公室和/或服务共享安排中，另一个值得关注的问题是，按照D . D .的要求，为每位澳博app的客户保密.C. 规则1.6. 参与办公室共享关系的澳博app必须确保他们自己的行为以及他们负责监督的专业人员和支持人员的行为完全符合这一义务，并保护客户的机密和秘密.

There are myriad logistical possibilities in office-sharing arrangements that could conceivably threaten client confidentiality. Individual attorney files and storage space in common or shared office areas must be treated in a way that preserves client confidentiality. 在办公室共享安排中，澳博app不应将机密客户文件留在任何未上锁的文件柜或共享办公空间的存储区域，因为这些文件可能被未经授权的个人访问并泄露机密.

同样的保密问题同样适用于计算机记录和工作文件. 不隶属的澳博app之间不受限制地访问彼此的电子文件(包括电子邮件和文字处理文档)和其他客户记录是不允许的. 如果不使用单独的计算机系统, each attorney’s confidential client information should be protected in a way that guards against unauthorized access and preserves client confidences and secrets.⁴ 类似的, attorneys sharing office space should consider the ethical implications of sharing a single fax line, 这可能会使客户的机密信息落入未授权方的手中, 包括共享办公空间的无关联澳博app. 看到 罗德岛州道德行动. 93-99 (1994); 另请参阅 科罗拉多州道德行动. 89 (1991).⁵

不管在特定的共用办公室安排方面采取了什么具体措施, 底线是，参与此类安排的澳博app必须采取一切合理必要的步骤来保护其个人客户信息的机密性. This includes the appropriate exercise of caution by individual attorneys to refrain from divulging, 未经客户同意, 他们可能在共享办公空间内讨论各自案例时的机密客户信息，以及对员工的适当监督，以确保他们同样保护客户的机密和秘密. 在办公室共享关系涉及共享员工的情况下, 参与安排的澳博app应采取积极措施，指导这些雇员履行保护客户机密的义务，并承担必要的持续监督，以确保做到这一点.

专业的独立

Attorneys sharing office space and/or services with other unaffiliated attorneys also must diligently protect the independence of their respective practices. It is only natural that attorneys involved in an office-sharing arrangement might rely on each other as a source of business referrals, 不在办公室时的后备报道, 或者只是在棘手的法律问题上提供意见. 但, 这样做的时候, attorneys must take be careful to protect the attorney-client relationship that exists between them and each of their clients. 不管随着时间的推移，办公室内的关系会变得多么方便, attorneys in office-sharing relationships are not partners in the practice of law together and cannot treat each other as such.

利益冲突

职业独立的问题不仅仅是一个理想的问题, since it directly affects the treatment of potential conflicts of interest among clients represented by office-sharing attorneys. D的要求.C. 规则1.7, 处理一般的利益冲突, and the other conflict of interest rules are imputed to other lawyers “associated with a firm” under D.C. 规则1.10. 对规则1的注释[1].第10条规定，“两名从业人员共用办公空间，偶尔相互咨询或协助，通常不被视为构成一家公司. 然而, if they present themselves to the public in a way suggesting that they are a firm or conduct themselves as a firm, 就规则而言，他们应被视为一家公司.评注继续承认，在作出这一决定时, 重要的是，不仅要考虑澳博app之间任何正式协议的条款，而且要考虑“他们是否能够相互接触到有关他们所服务的客户的机密信息”.” Id.; 另请参阅 D.C. 酒吧Op. 根据规则1推定取消资格.10 .恰当地发现，办公室共享者被列为不合格澳博app的“澳博app”。.

This is an inherently factual inquiry turning upon the unique facts and circumstances of particular office-sharing relationship. 但重要的是要认识到，办公室共享安排可以, 在某些情况下, 制造冲突问题，可能会取消参与这些安排的澳博app的资格. 看,e.g., 美国澳博app协会非正式道德操行. 1486年2月. 8, 1982) (lawyer may rent space from a law firm even though the lawyer and the law firm represent potentially adverse interests provided that appropriate care is taken to protect client confidences and clients consent to representation after disclosure); 美国澳博app协会非正式道德操行. 1474年(1月. 18, 1982) (military lawyers working in same office and sharing common secretaries and filing facilities should avoid representing conflicting interests); Virginia Ethics Opin. 677(4月. 2, 1985)(与另一澳博app共用办公空间和费用的澳博app不得在离婚诉讼中代表丈夫和妻子，如果办公室共享者曾在离婚诉讼中代表有争议的财产解决); In re Sexson, 613 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. 1993年)(澳博app共用办公空间, 秘书, 信头, 电话线路, 以及获取机密信息的权限, it was reasonable for client to assume that lawyers were members of same firm; lawyer could not represent wife in divorce action when another office-sharer represented husband in personal injury claim). 希望共享办公空间的澳博app必须确保这些安排不会造成不允许的利益冲突的表象，或以其他方式对他们热情地代表客户的能力产生不利影响.

调查没有. 00-8-32
通过日期:2001年2月21日

1. 至少八个其他州澳博app组织(加州), 科罗拉多州, 康涅狄格, 马里兰, 密歇根, 俄亥俄州, 罗德岛州, and Virginia) have addressed office and/or service sharing arrangements between unaffiliated attorneys. All have approved such arrangements subject to varying qualifications designed to ensure compliance with the ethical rules addressed herein. 看,e.g.加州伦理咨询公司. 1997-150 (1997); 科罗拉多州道德行动in. 89 (1991); 康涅狄格 Ethics Opin. 90-27 (1990); 马里兰 Ethics Opin. 88-10 (1987); 密歇根 Informal Ethics Opin. CI-1045 (1984); 俄亥俄州伦理行动in. 89-36 (1989); 罗德岛州道德行动in. 88-5 (1988); Virginia Ethics Opin. 874 (1987).
2. The same potential for confusion can arise from the manner in which the sharing attorneys’ relationship is denoted on directory listings, 办公室的迹象, and advertisements and the manner in which the sharing attorneys introduce each other to clients and other members of the public.
3. It is generally considered inappropriate to use the term “of counsel” to refer to a lawyer who merely shares office space. 堪萨斯州伦理意见. 83-34 (1983), 83-34A (1984); 密歇根 Informal Ethics Opin. CI-1081 (1984); Oreg在道德 Opin. 1991-12 (1991).
4. 在某种程度上使用共享计算机系统, it is likely that the same employees or third-party contractors would provide technical support and otherwise service the system. 在这种情况下, 提供技术支持的人员, 就像所有共享的员工或承包商一样, 必须被告知他们有义务为客户保密, 相关的澳博app必须确保这一点得以实现.
5. 不能使用私人传真线路的地方, 可能有必要向潜在用户说明这一点, 特别的客户, 传真的通讯内容不是私人的. 参见密歇根非正式伦理意见. RI-249 (1996).