Short answer. Florida lets lawyers in different firms divide a fee only if the total fee is reasonable and either the division is in proportion to the services each lawyer performs, or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint legal responsibility for the representation (Rule 4-1.5(g)). In contingent personal injury, wrongful death and property damage cases, the lawyer assuming secondary responsibility may take at most 25% of the total fee, unless two or more lawyers or firms accept substantially equal active participation and a court authorizes a larger division (Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(ii)–(iii)).
Sources read October 2, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 27, 2026. Rules text is as printed in the October 2026 Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
Florida’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | Florida’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 4-1.5(g), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, subject to Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D) | RRTFB Ch. 4, p. 214 |
| Basis for a division | In proportion to services performed, or by written client agreement with joint legal responsibility | Rule 4-1.5(g)(1)–(2) |
| Written client consent | Required for a division not in proportion to services; required in every contingent-fee matter | Rule 4-1.5(g)(2); Rule 4-1.5(f)(2) |
| Disclosure to the client | The agreement must fully disclose that a division will be made and its basis; in a contingent-fee matter, the client gets a copy of the signed contract | Rule 4-1.5(g)(2)(B); Rule 4-1.5(f)(2) |
| Joint responsibility | Required for a division by written agreement; required of every participating lawyer in a contingent-fee matter | Rule 4-1.5(g)(2)(A); Rule 4-1.5(f)(2) |
| Cap on the secondary lawyer’s share | Personal injury, wrongful death and property damage contingent fees: at least 75% to the lawyer assuming primary responsibility, at most 25% to the lawyer assuming secondary responsibility | Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(i)–(ii) |
| Exceeding 25% | Only with substantially equal active participation, on court authorization of a sworn petition signed by all counsel | Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(iii) |
| Statute on dividing fees between lawyers | None found; ss. 877.01–.02 address instigation and solicitation, and s. 877.01(4) excludes division of fees between attorneys | Fla. Stat. §§ 877.01, 877.02 |
What Rule 4-1.5(g) says
Rule 4-1.5(g) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, as printed in the October 2026 rules (RRTFB Ch. 4, Rule 4-1.5(g), printed p. 214):
(g) Division of Fees Between Lawyers in Different Firms. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (f)(4)(D), a division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the total fee is reasonable and:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer; or
(2) by written agreement with the client:
(A) each lawyer assumes joint legal responsibility for the representation and agrees to be available for consultation with the client; and
(B) the agreement fully discloses that a division of fees will be made and the basis upon which the division of fees will be made.
The date these words of Rule 4-1.5(g) took effect is not established in our sources. They are stated here as in force as printed in October 2026.
What the client must agree to in writing
There are two rules on written consent.
- A division not in proportion to services. Any division between lawyers in different firms made on a basis other than the services each performs needs a written agreement with the client (Rule 4-1.5(g)(2)). A division in proportion to services performed needs no written agreement with the client (Rule 4-1.5(g)(1); Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 90-8; Jay v. Trazenfeld).
- Any contingent-fee matter. No lawyer or firm may participate in the fee without the consent of the client in writing, and each participating lawyer or firm must sign the contract with the client (Rule 4-1.5(f)(2)).
Rule 4-1.5(f)(2) reads (RRTFB Ch. 4, printed p. 205):
(2) Every lawyer who accepts a retainer or enters into an agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services rendered or to be rendered in any action, claim, or proceeding in which the lawyer’s compensation is to be dependent or contingent in whole or in part on the successful prosecution or settlement must do so only where the fee arrangement is reduced to a written contract, signed by the client, and by a lawyer for the lawyer or for the law firm representing the client. No lawyer or firm may participate in the fee without the consent of the client in writing. Each participating lawyer or law firm must sign the contract with the client and must agree to assume joint legal responsibility to the client for the performance of the services in question as if each were partners of the other lawyer or law firm involved. The client must be furnished with a copy of the signed contract and any subsequent notices or consents. All provisions of this rule will apply to such fee contracts.
What must be disclosed to the client
The written agreement must fully disclose that a division of fees will be made and the basis on which it will be made (Rule 4-1.5(g)(2)(B)). In a contingent-fee matter, the client must receive a copy of the signed contract and any later notices or consents (Rule 4-1.5(f)(2)). In Katz v. Frank, Weinberg & Black, P.L., 268 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), Judge Forst, concurring specially, read Rule 4-1.5(g)(2) to require a prospective agreement “prepared at the commencement of the engagement.”
Proportionality or joint responsibility
A division is allowed only if the total fee is reasonable and either (1) it is in proportion to the services each lawyer performs, or (2) by written agreement with the client each lawyer assumes joint legal responsibility for the representation and agrees to be available for consultation (Rule 4-1.5(g)). In contingent-fee matters, Rule 4-1.5(f)(2) also requires each participating lawyer to assume joint legal responsibility as if partners.
The 75/25 split in contingent personal injury cases
Rule 4-1.5(f)(4) covers any fee in an action or claim for personal injury or for property damages or for death or loss of services resulting from personal injuries based on tortious conduct of another, including products liability claims, where the compensation is contingent. For lawyers not in the same firm, a division of that fee must follow Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D) (RRTFB Ch. 4, printed pp. 212–213):
(D) As to lawyers not in the same firm, a division of any fee within subdivision (f)(4) must be on the following basis:
(i) To the lawyer assuming primary responsibility for the legal services on behalf of the client, a minimum of 75% of the total fee.
(ii) To the lawyer assuming secondary responsibility for the legal services on behalf of the client, a maximum of 25% of the total fee. Any fee in excess of 25% will be presumed to be clearly excessive.
(iii) The 25% limitation will not apply to those cases in which 2 or more lawyers or firms accept substantially equal active participation in the providing of legal services. In those circumstances counsel must apply to the court in which the matter would be filed, if litigation is necessary, or if such court will not accept jurisdiction for the fee division, the circuit court in which the cause of action arose, for authorization of the fee division in excess of 25%, based on a sworn petition signed by all counsel that discloses in detail those services to be performed. The application for authorization of the contract may be filed as a separate proceeding before suit or simultaneously with the filing of a complaint, or within 10 days of execution of a contract for division of fees when new counsel is engaged. Proceedings on these applications may occur before service of process on any party and this aspect of the file may be sealed. Authorization of the contract will not bar subsequent inquiry as to whether the fee actually claimed or charged is clearly excessive. An application under this subdivision must contain a certificate showing service on the client and, if the application is denied, a copy of the petition and order denying the petition must be served on The Florida Bar in Tallahassee by the member of the bar who filed the petition. Counsel may proceed with representation of the client pending court approval.
(iv) The percentages required by this subdivision are applicable after deduction of any fee payable to separate counsel retained especially for appellate purposes.
In short: at least 75% to the lawyer with primary responsibility and at most 25% to the lawyer with secondary responsibility; more than 25% is presumed clearly excessive. The 25% cap lifts only where two or more lawyers or firms accept substantially equal active participation, and then only on court authorization of a sworn petition signed by all counsel, served on the client, filed before suit, with the complaint, or within 10 days of the fee-division contract when new counsel is engaged. The percentages apply after any separate appellate counsel’s fee.
Referring a case out of Florida, or into it
Florida’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 3-4.6(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, is its counterpart to ABA Model Rule 8.5(b) and tracks it. It says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when Florida exercises its disciplinary authority (RRTFB Ch. 3, printed p. 82):
(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied are as follows:
(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and
(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction will be applied to the conduct.
Two Florida Bar ethics opinions address a division with a lawyer in another state:
- Opinion 17-1 (2017): Florida Bar members may divide fees with lawyers from other jurisdictions only where the out-of-state lawyers are providing legal services to the same client that the out-of-state lawyers are authorized by other law to provide, and only in compliance with Florida Bar rules. So done, it is not fee sharing with a nonlawyer under Rule 4-5.4.
- Opinion 90-8 (1991): the 25% contingent-fee limit applies when a Florida lawyer refers a case to a lawyer in another state.
Receiving a case into Florida. A referral fee to a lawyer in another state is governed by Rule 4-1.5(g) and, in contingent personal-injury matters, Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D), as for any lawyer not in the same firm.
Which state’s rules govern a particular cross-border referral is not settled by any Florida authority we found. No Florida court decision or ethics opinion construing Rule 3-4.6(b) was found.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. A lawyer may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may pay the reasonable cost of advertising permitted by the rules, may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service, lawyer directory, qualifying provider or other legal service organization, and may purchase a law practice in accordance with Rule 4-1.17 (Rule 4-7.17(b)).
- Nonlawyers. A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except as Rule 4-5.4(a)(1)–(5) allows (Rule 4-5.4(a)).
- Qualifying providers. A qualifying provider may receive no fee or charge that is a division or sharing of fees, unless it is The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service or a lawyer referral service approved by The Florida Bar under chapter 8 (Rule 4-7.22(d)(2); see Op. 18-1 on for-profit providers).
- Statutes. Sections 877.01 and 877.02, Florida Statutes, make instigating litigation and soliciting legal services for pay misdemeanors of the first degree. Section 877.01(4) reads: “Nothing herein shall apply to the division of legal fees by and between attorneys at law.” No Florida statute governs fee division between lawyers.
Florida cases on dividing fees
We state what each decision held, in the words of our research. Later treatment of these decisions has not been searched, so do not read this list as a statement that each one remains good law. Decisions issued before March 5, 2019, when the current wording of Rule 4-1.5(f) took effect, construed earlier wording (cited then as 4-1.5(E), (G) or (F)(4)(d)); their holdings are theirs, not readings of today’s text. Virgin v. Frexes (2026) applied the rule to an agreement made before that date.
| Case | Citation | Year | What it held (or, where marked, a separate opinion) |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Florida Bar v. Perlmutter | 582 So. 2d 616 | 1991 | Florida Supreme Court disciplined a lawyer under 4-1.5(G) for agreeing to a referral fee excessive for the referring lawyer’s share of the services, and under 4-5.4 for agreeing to pay legal fees to a nonlawyer. |
| Mark Jay Kaufman, P.A. v. Davis & Meadows, P.A. | 600 So. 2d 1208 | 1992 | Applied the then-numbered fee-division rule (4-1.5(E)) permitting division between firms only in proportion to services or under its other conditions. |
| Robert A. Shupack, P.A. v. Marcus | 606 So. 2d 466 | 1992 | A dissent (Ferguson, J.) noted that former DR 2-107 had been replaced by rule 4-1.5(F)(4)(d). |
| Halberg v. W.M. Chanfrau, P.A. | 613 So. 2d 600 | 1993 | Held that a written referral agreement satisfying 4-1.5(G)(2) lets the receiving lawyers divide the fee with the referring lawyer by the agreed percentages, though the agreement should preferably track (G)(2)(a)’s words. |
| Barwick, Dillian & Lambert, P.A. v. Ewing | 646 So. 2d 776 | 1994 | Applied the rule that a secondary lawyer’s share above 25% of a contingent fee is presumed clearly excessive. |
| The Florida Bar v. Beach | 675 So. 2d 106 | 1996 | Florida Supreme Court disciplined a lawyer for sharing a legal fee with a nonlawyer in violation of 4-5.4. |
| Noris v. Silver | 701 So. 2d 1238 | 1997 | Held that a lawyer who agrees to divide a fee under 4-1.5(g) assumes joint legal responsibility and can be liable for the other lawyer’s malpractice, even without the written client agreement (g)(2) calls for. |
| The Florida Bar v. Carson | 737 So. 2d 1069 | 1999 | Florida Supreme Court held that an oral agreement to divide a fee between firms violates 4-1.5(g). |
| Wiggins v. Estate of Wright | 850 So. 2d 444 | 2003 | Quoted 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)’s basis for dividing a contingent fee between lawyers not in the same firm. |
| The Florida Bar v. Barrett | 897 So. 2d 1269 | 2005 | Florida Supreme Court approved findings that a lawyer violated 4-5.4(a)(4) by sharing fees with nonlawyers. |
| The Florida Bar v. Shankman | 908 So. 2d 379 | 2005 | Florida Supreme Court found a 4-5.4(a) violation in paying a nonlawyer a seven-percent bonus. |
| Marcus v. Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C. | 441 F. Supp. 2d 1227 | 2006 | Federal court (persuasive in Florida) held a fee-division agreement between firms governed by 4-1.5(g)(2), (g)(1) being inapplicable on the facts. |
| Jay v. Trazenfeld | 952 So. 2d 635 | 2007 | Held that 4-1.5(g)(1) allows division in proportion to services even without a written agreement, and that 4-1.5(f)(4)(D) limits a contingent-fee division to 75% primary and 25% secondary. |
| Patterson v. A Law Office of Lauri J. Goldstein, P.A. | 980 So. 2d 1234 | 2008 | Held a bonus agreement implicating 4-5.4(a)(4) enforceable by the nonlawyer employee, who was not in pari delicto. |
| Wright v. Ford Motor Co. | 982 F. Supp. 2d 1292 | 2013 | Federal court (persuasive in Florida) held that 4-1.5(f)(4)(D) controls over 4-1.5(g) for contingent fees and granted a petition to exceed the 25% limit on a co-counsel showing under (D)(iii). |
| Katz v. Frank, Weinberg & Black, P.L. | 268 So. 3d 773 | 2019 | Forst, J., concurring specially: the division was not in proportion to services, and the after-the-fact agreement did not satisfy 4-1.5(g)(2), which requires a prospective agreement prepared at the start of the engagement. |
| Harmon Parker, P.A. v. Santek Management, LLC | No. 2D18-4632 | 2020 | Held 4-1.5(f)(4)(D) governs a contingent fee split between firms and enforced (D)(iii)’s sworn, all-counsel petition filed within ten days. |
| Virgin v. Frexes | Nos. 3D24-1399, 3D24-1400, 3D24-1402 | 2026 | Held that a referring lawyer recovers either for services rendered or, by agreement, a percentage in exchange for assuming joint responsibility, which makes the referring lawyer a fiduciary of the client. |
Florida Bar ethics opinions
As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched.
| Opinion | Year | What it said |
|---|---|---|
| Opinion 88-10 | 1988 | A lawyer may not share in a fee unless the total fee charged to the client is reasonable. |
| Opinion 89-1 | 1989 | A lawyer who would have to refuse the employment in the first place cannot take a referral fee; that lawyer fails both of the fee-division rule’s tests. |
| Opinion 90-3 | 1990 | Lawyers in different firms may divide a fee either in proportion to services or under a written agreement with the client. |
| Opinion 90-8 | 1991 | The 25% contingent-fee limit applies when a Florida lawyer refers a case to a lawyer in another state; (g)(1) allows a quantum-meruit division without a written client agreement, and (g)(2) requires the client’s written agreement. |
| Opinion 92-3 | 1992 | The proposed fee-division arrangements would share legal fees with nonlawyers, which 4-5.4(a) prohibits. |
| Opinion 93-6 | 1994 | Lawyers of two firms may not form a third firm only to evade 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)’s limits on dividing contingent fees. |
| Opinion 93-7 | 1994 | Lawyers of two firms may co-counsel a medical malpractice case and divide the fee 50-50 only with the court’s approval under 4-1.5(f)(4)(D). |
| Opinion 94-1 | 1994 | Rule 4-1.5(g) governs all fee divisions between lawyers not in the same firm; the opinion names situations where (g) and (f)(4)(D) need not be met. |
| Opinion 94-7 | 1995 | A division other than 75% primary and 25% secondary needs circuit court authorization under 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(iii). |
| Opinion 95-2 | 1995 | The proposal implicates the rules against splitting fees with nonlawyers and assisting unauthorized practice (4-5.4(a), (b)). |
| Opinion 97-3 | 1997 | The referral scheme implicates the rules against splitting fees with nonlawyers and assisting unauthorized practice. |
| Opinion 02-1 | 2002 | A firm may pay a legal assistant a bonus, but not one based in any way on a percentage of fees (4-5.4(a)(4)). |
| Opinion 02-3 | 2002 | A conflict that keeps a lawyer from accepting joint responsibility for the representation bars that lawyer’s share under 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(i)-(ii). |
| Opinion 16-2 | 2016 | The loan arrangement considered is not an impermissible division of fees under 4-5.4(a). |
| Opinion 17-1 | 2017 | Florida lawyers may divide fees with out-of-state lawyers only where those lawyers provide legal services to the same client that other law authorizes them to provide, and only in compliance with Florida’s rules; so done, it is not fee sharing with a nonlawyer under 4-5.4. |
| Opinion 18-1 | 2018 | Lawyers may not participate with a for-profit qualifying provider that charges a fee that is a division of legal fees (4-7.22(d)(2)). |
Authorities from other states on Florida’s rules
These come from outside Florida and are not Florida authority.
- Matter of Kaufman, 2017 NY Slip Op 07030; 154 AD3d 1049 (2017): New York court (out of state) imposed reciprocal discipline on a lawyer found to have shared fees with nonlawyers in violation of Florida rule 4-5.4(a)(4).
- Illinois State Bar Association Advisory Opinion 21-04, “Paying a referral fee to an out-of-state lawyer” (May 2021): Illinois State Bar Association opinion (out of state) noting Florida’s 25% limit on referral fees in personal injury cases.
What our research did not find
- No Florida court decision or ethics opinion construing Rule 3-4.6(b) (choice of law) was found, and no ethics opinion construing Rule 4-7.17(b) was found (searched October 2, 2026).
- No Florida statute governs fee division between lawyers; ss. 877.01–.02 address instigation and solicitation only (searched October 2, 2026).
- Later treatment of every Florida authority on this page has not been searched. This page states what each authority held, not that it remains good law.
- The words of Rule 4-1.5(g) and parts of Rule 4-1.5(f) are printed as current in the October 2026 Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (read October 2, 2026). The date those words took effect is not established for every part, so this page states them as in force as of that printing.
- Versions of Rule 4-1.5 before the current wording of Rule 4-1.5(f) took effect on March 5, 2019, were not reviewed. Decisions issued before that date construed earlier wording; their holdings are stated as theirs, not as readings of today’s text.
- About 47 further Florida leads identified in our research were not collected, and they are not cited here.
Frequently asked questions
Can I share a referral fee with a lawyer in Florida?
Yes, under Rule 4-1.5(g) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. A fee may be divided between lawyers who are not in the same firm only if the total fee is reasonable and either the division is in proportion to the services each lawyer performs, or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint legal responsibility for the representation and agrees to be available for consultation, and the agreement fully discloses that a division will be made and its basis. Contingent personal injury, wrongful death and property damage cases are also subject to Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D).
Is there a cap on referral fees in Florida?
In contingent-fee actions or claims for personal injury, property damage, or death or loss of services resulting from personal injuries, Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D) requires a minimum of 75% of the total fee to the lawyer assuming primary responsibility and a maximum of 25% to the lawyer assuming secondary responsibility. Any fee in excess of 25% is presumed to be clearly excessive. The 25% limitation does not apply where two or more lawyers or firms accept substantially equal active participation, and then counsel must apply to the court for authorization on a sworn petition signed by all counsel.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Florida?
It depends on the basis of the division. A division in proportion to the services each lawyer performs needs no written agreement with the client (Rule 4-1.5(g)(1); Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 90-8; Jay v. Trazenfeld, 952 So. 2d 635). Any other division needs a written agreement with the client (Rule 4-1.5(g)(2)). In a contingent-fee matter, no lawyer or firm may participate in the fee without the consent of the client in writing, and each participating lawyer or firm must sign the contract with the client (Rule 4-1.5(f)(2)).
Can a Florida lawyer pay a referral fee to a lawyer in another state?
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 17-1 says Florida Bar members may divide fees with lawyers from other jurisdictions only where the out-of-state lawyers are providing legal services to the same client that other law authorizes them to provide, and only in compliance with Florida Bar rules. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 90-8 says nothing suggests the 25% limitation is inapplicable when a Florida Bar member refers a case to an attorney in another state. Which state’s rules govern a particular cross-border referral is not settled by any Florida authority we found.
Sources
- Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Chapter 4 (Rules 4-1.5, 4-5.4, 4-7.17, 4-7.22), October 2026 printing: www-media.floridabar.org
- Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Chapter 3 (Rule 3-4.6), October 2026 printing: www-media.floridabar.org
- Florida Statutes § 877.01: leg.state.fl.us
- Florida Statutes § 877.02: leg.state.fl.us
- Cases and ethics opinions: linked in the tables above.
More states: Referral fee rules by state.
Disclaimer
This page summarizes a state’s rules on dividing fees between lawyers, from the primary sources it cites, as of the dates shown. It is general information for lawyers, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Rose Law Firm, PLLC dba LegalFlare. Rules and the way courts and bar authorities read them change. Read the cited sources, and check with the state bar or your own counsel, before relying on anything here.