Short answer. Michigan lets lawyers in different firms divide a fee only if the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved, and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)). The rule’s words ask for no written client consent. Unlike ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), Michigan’s rule has no proportion-to-services test and no joint-responsibility alternative. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that the referring lawyer must have an attorney-client relationship with the referred client, which may be limited to advising the client to seek the other lawyer’s services if both show an intent to enter that relationship (Sherbow, 2021). The rule states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share.
Sources read October 25, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 27, 2026. Rules text is as printed in the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct published by the Michigan courts (courts.michigan.gov), fetched October 25, 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
Michigan’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | Michigan’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 1.5(e), Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct | MRPC 1.5(e), PDF p. 14 |
| Written client consent | Not required by the rule’s words | Rule 1.5(e) |
| Notice to the client | The client must be advised of, and not object to, the participation of all the lawyers involved; the rule’s words do not require that the client be told each lawyer’s share | Rule 1.5(e)(1) |
| Proportion to services or joint responsibility | Neither is required | Rule 1.5(e); McCroskey (1992); Sherbow (2021) |
| Reasonable total fee | Required | Rule 1.5(e)(2) |
| Cap on the secondary lawyer’s share | None stated in Rule 1.5(e); ethics opinions advised that MCR 8.121 limits the total fee of all lawyers to one-third of the recovery in personal-injury and wrongful-death cases | Rule 1.5(e); RI-114, RI-122 (1992) |
| Statutes | None on these points was found; the Michigan Compiled Laws were screened by section number only, so this page does not say none exists | Michigan Compiled Laws (screened October 25, 2026) |
What Rule 1.5(e) says
Rule 1.5(e) of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, as printed in the rules fetched October 25, 2026 (MRPC 1.5(e), PDF p. 14):
(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and
(2) the total fee is reasonable.
No order adopting or amending these words is held, so the date they took effect is not established in our sources. They are stated here as printed when fetched in October 2026.
What the client must agree to in writing
Nothing, by the rule’s words. Rule 1.5(e) allows a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm only if the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved (Rule 1.5(e)(1)) and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)(2)); neither part asks for the client’s agreement in writing. Model Rule 1.5(e), as State Bar of Michigan ethics opinion RI-382 (2021) describes it, requires client agreement confirmed in writing.
In Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v Fieger & Fieger, PC (Mich. 2021), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the party challenging a referral-fee agreement under Rule 1.5(e) bears the burden of proving the violation.
What must be disclosed to the client
The client must be advised of the participation of all the lawyers involved and must not object (Rule 1.5(e)(1)). The rule’s words do not require that the client be told each lawyer’s share.
- What the client is told. State Bar of Michigan ethics opinion RI-234 (1995) advised that the client must be told who the lawyers dividing the fee are, whom to contact, what services each will provide and who is responsible for the matter, and that both the referring and the receiving lawyer must see that the client is advised and does not object.
- The referring lawyer’s relationship with the client. In Sherbow (Mich. 2021), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a fee division under Rule 1.5(e) requires the referring lawyer to have an attorney-client relationship with the referred client, which may be limited to advising the client to seek the other lawyer’s services if both show an intent to enter that relationship.
- When consent and objection count. In Idalski v. Crouse Cartage Co. (E.D. Mich. 2002), the federal court held that client consent to a referral-fee agreement is required only when the agreement is made, not again just before payment. In Sherbow (Mich. Ct. App. 2019) and Babi v. Estate of Herman (Mich. Ct. App. 2024), the Court of Appeals held that the objection must come when the client is informed, so a later objection does not make the agreement unenforceable; in Babi, an objection four years after the referral was not sufficient.
Proportionality or joint responsibility
Neither is required. Michigan’s Rule 1.5(e) asks only that the client be advised and not object (Rule 1.5(e)(1)) and that the total fee be reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). Unlike Model Rule 1.5(e), it has no proportion-to-services test and no joint-responsibility alternative. In Sherbow (2021), the Michigan Supreme Court said the 1988 rule discarded the former services-and-responsibility requirement, and in McCroskey, Feldman, Cochrane & Brock, PC v. Waters (1992), the Court of Appeals said the rule no longer requires a division in proportion to the services each lawyer performs.
State Bar of Michigan ethics opinion RI-234 (1995) advised that the referring lawyer need not assume responsibility for the case, that the “total fee” is the fee charged to the client, and that the split between the lawyers is a matter of contract. Opinions RI-114 and RI-122 (1992) advised that in a personal-injury or wrongful-death case MCR 8.121 limits the total fee of all lawyers to one-third of the recovery. This page does not state MCR 8.121’s own terms.
Referring a case out of Michigan, or into it
Michigan’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 8.5(b), follows ABA Model Rule 8.5(b). It says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when Michigan exercises its disciplinary authority (MRPC 8.5(b), PDF p. 92):
(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be 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 conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct; a lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer’s conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer’s conduct will occur.
Referring a case out of Michigan. State Bar of Michigan ethics opinion RI-382 (2021) advised that Michigan lawyers may divide fees with out-of-state lawyers if the division complies with the ethics rules of both jurisdictions. It called Michigan’s Rule 1.5(e) comparatively permissive and advised that, in cross-border referrals, Michigan lawyers should study the other jurisdiction’s counterpart rule for compliance.
Receiving a case into Michigan. Ethics opinion RI-199 (1994) advised that a Michigan lawyer may pay an out-of-state law firm, whose lawyers are not licensed in Michigan, a referral fee under Rule 1.5(e) for a divorce case in a Michigan court, because they are lawyers for purposes of Rule 1.5(e); the terms must comply with the ethics rules of both jurisdictions. Ethics opinion RI-122 (1992) advised that in a personal-injury or wrongful-death case tried in a Michigan court, a Michigan lawyer may not divide a fee under Rule 1.5(e) with an out-of-state lawyer where the total fee of all lawyers exceeds MCR 8.121’s one-third, even if the other state allows more.
RI-199 and RI-382 advised compliance with both jurisdictions’ rules without applying Rule 8.5(b). No Michigan court decision or ethics opinion applying Rule 8.5(b) was found, and no authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. “(c) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may: (i) pay the reasonable cost of advertising or communication permitted by this rule; (ii) participate in, and pay the usual charges of, a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization that satisfies the requirements of Rule 6.3(b); and (iii) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17” (Rule 7.2(c)). Michigan’s Rule 7.2(c) is the counterpart of Model Rule 7.2(b); it lists only these three exceptions, with no reciprocal-referral or nominal-gift exception. This page does not state Rule 6.3(b)’s requirements.
- Nonlawyers. “(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer’s death, to the lawyer’s estate, or to one or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.17, pay to the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price; (3) a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement; and (4) a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter” (Rule 5.4(a)).
- How the rules fit together. In Sherbow (2021), the Michigan Supreme Court read Rule 1.5(e) as an exception to the bans in Rules 7.2(c) and 5.4(a). In Morris & Doherty, PC v. Lockwood (2003), the Court of Appeals held that a referral fee to a lawyer placed on inactive bar status before making the referral would breach both Rule 5.4(a) and Rule 7.2(c).
- Statutes. No Michigan statute on dividing fees, sharing fees with nonlawyers, paying for recommendations or choice of law was found in our research. The Michigan Compiled Laws were screened by section number only, so this page does not say Michigan has no statute on these points.
Michigan cases
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.
| Case | Citation | Year | What it held |
|---|---|---|---|
| McCroskey, Feldman, Cochrane & Brock, PC v. Waters | 197 Mich. App. 282; 494 N.W.2d 826 | 1992 | Michigan Court of Appeals held that a firm’s agreement assigning it a percentage of the fee on files a departing director takes with him is a mechanism for dividing an already existing fee, not a referral situation the rule contemplates, and does not violate MRPC 1.5(e) (or 5.6(a)). It noted that 1.5(e), unlike former DR 2-107, no longer requires a division in proportion to the services each lawyer performs. |
| Evans & Luptak, PLC v. Lizza | 251 Mich. App. 187; 650 N.W.2d 364 | 2002 | Michigan Court of Appeals refused to enforce a referral-fee contract under which the referring firm would take one-third of recoveries in wrongful-death claims it referred against its own client. Finding Ethics Opinion RI-116 persuasive (a referral fee gives a lawyer with a conflict a pecuniary interest in the outcome, citing MRPC 1.5(e)), it held the contract unethical and held that contracts violating the MRPC are against public policy and unenforceable. |
| Idalski v. Crouse Cartage Co. | 229 F. Supp. 2d 730 | 2002 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that under MRPC 1.5(e) client consent to a referral-fee agreement is required only when the agreement is made, not again just before payment. It also held that the clients’ consent there was fraudulently induced, so the agreement was voidable, and the referring lawyer received no part of the fee. |
| Morris & Doherty, PC v. Lockwood | 259 Mich. App. 38; 672 N.W.2d 884 | 2003 | Michigan Court of Appeals held that a person placed on inactive bar status before making a referral is a “nonlawyer” for MRPC 5.4(a), read with 1.5(e), so a fee may not be shared with her. Paying her the agreed one-third referral fee would share legal fees with a nonlawyer (5.4(a)) and give something of value for a recommendation (7.2(c)), so the referral-fee contract was void ab initio as against public policy. |
| Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v. Fieger & Fieger, PC | 326 Mich. App. 684; 930 N.W.2d 416 | 2019 | Michigan Court of Appeals held that MRPC 1.5(e) requires only that the client be advised of and not object to the referral-fee agreement, and that the objection must come when the client is informed of it; and that noncompliance with 1.5(e) is an affirmative defense on which the defendant bears the burden. On whether the referring lawyer needs an attorney-client relationship with the clients, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed it in 2021 (next row). |
| Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v Fieger & Fieger, PC | No. 159450 | 2021 | Michigan Supreme Court held that a fee division under MRPC 1.5(e) requires the referring lawyer to have an attorney-client relationship with the referred client, which may be limited to advising the client to seek the other lawyer’s services if both show an intent to enter that relationship. It read 1.5(e) as an exception to the bans in MRPC 7.2(c) and 5.4(a), and held that the party challenging a referral-fee agreement under 1.5(e) bears the burden of proving the violation. |
| Melvin J. Babi v. Estate of Gregg E. Herman | No. 364375 | 2024 | Michigan Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition against a referring lawyer. Following Sherbow (2019) on when an objection must be made, it held that the client’s objection four years after the referral was not sufficient to render the referral-fee agreement unenforceable under MRPC 1.5(e). |
State Bar of Michigan ethics opinions
As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched. Rule 7.2(c) was amended after 1990, and the opinions from 1989 to 1991 that apply it (RI-17, RI-24, RI-9, RI-32, RI-36, R-6, R-8 and RI-75) construed the earlier wording of its referral-service exception; each holding is stated as the opinion’s own. The State Bar notes on RI-114, RI-224 and RI-234 that their analysis “may be impacted by” Sherbow (2021).
| Opinion | Year | What it said |
|---|---|---|
| RI-17 | 1989 | A profit-making entity that markets lawyers’ services to a defined interest group, for a fee paid by the participating lawyers, is a legal referral service, and participating in it violates MRPC 7.2(c). It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c) (“may pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization”). |
| RI-24 | 1989 | A lawyer may not pay an annual fee to participate in a for-profit lawyer referral service, which falls outside the not-for-profit exception of MRPC 7.2(c). It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c). |
| RI-9 | 1989 | A group television advertising venture that makes blind referrals of callers to a contracting lawyer is referral or solicitation rather than mere advertising, and to the extent the lawyer’s contract fee covers more than permitted advertising it violates MRPC 7.2(c). It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c). |
| RI-32 | 1989 | A nonprofit legal hotline staffed entirely by lawyers may receive a referral fee, including a percentage of the fees of the private lawyers it refers clients to. MRPC 7.2(c) allows paying the usual charges of a not-for-profit referral service, 5.4(a) does not apply because the hotline staff are lawyers, and the sharing is subject to the conditions of 1.5(e). It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c); the Bar notes it was issued before MRPC 6.3(b). |
| RI-36 | 1989 | A law firm that would pay a Chamber of Commerce a percentage of fees from hotline callers who retain it gives value for an implied recommendation, outside the exceptions of MRPC 7.2(c), and shares legal fees with a nonlawyer in violation of 5.4(a). It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c). |
| R-6 | 1989 | Guidelines for lawyer referral services: a lawyer may pay a for-profit referral service only the reasonable cost of advertising, not for channeling professional work (MRPC 7.2(c)), and may not turn over part of a fee to a referral service operated by nonlawyers (5.4(a)). It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c). |
| R-8 | 1990 | A Michigan lawyer who participates in a for-profit lawyer referral service to which the lawyer pays fees for referrals would contravene MRPC 7.2(c) and be subject to discipline. It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c). |
| RI-75 | 1991 | A not-for-profit lawyer referral service registered with the State Bar may charge as a referral fee a percentage of the referred lawyer’s fee, which MRPC 7.2(c) permits, and where the service insulates its panelists from undue influence the rule against fee-splitting with nonlawyers (5.4(a)) is not violated. The lawyer may not increase the fee to cover the payment. It construed the earlier wording of 7.2(c). |
| RI-104 | 1991 | A law firm’s agreement to pay an independent-contractor consultant 25% of the tax savings realized by its clients shares legal fees with a nonlawyer and is prohibited by MRPC 5.4(a); the exception for nonlawyer employees in 5.4(a)(3) does not apply to an independent contractor. |
| RI-114 | 1992 | A lawyer handling an estate’s probate matter may refer the wrongful-death claim to another firm for a referral fee of a percentage of that firm’s fee, if the personal representative agrees to the referral and the total fee is reasonable (MRPC 1.5(e)); it advised that MCR 8.121 limits the total fee in a wrongful-death action to one-third. |
| RI-116 | 1992 | A lawyer who discovers a conflict of interest that prevents taking a case may not refer the potential client to another lawyer and accept a referral fee; the referral fee gives the lawyer a residual pecuniary interest in the outcome (MRPC 1.5(e), with 1.7 and 1.9). |
| RI-122 | 1992 | In a personal-injury or wrongful-death case tried in a Michigan court, a Michigan lawyer may not divide a fee under MRPC 1.5(e) with an out-of-state lawyer where the total fee of all lawyers exceeds MCR 8.121’s one-third, even if the other state allows more. It noted that 1.5(e) is significantly different from former DR 2-107. |
| RI-124 | 1992 | A firm may pay a referring lawyer a referral fee computed as a percentage of hourly billings to the referred client, consistent with MRPC 1.5(e), if the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers, the client’s bill is not increased because of the referral fee, and the total fee is reasonable. |
| RI-147 | 1992 | If a Chamber of Commerce uses a law firm’s discount to Chamber members as an incentive to attract members, the firm, by permitting that use, gives the Chamber something of value for its recommendation in violation of MRPC 7.2(c), and the arrangement is not proper. |
| RI-163 | 1993 | A lawyer may advertise that part of the fee will be donated to a religious or charitable organization; because the organization is not involved in the communication, it is not giving value for a referral under MRPC 7.2(c). It restated that 5.4(a) bars sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. |
| RI-164 | 1993 | A lawyer may advertise free wills for clients who leave a bequest to an organization, under the standards of RI-147 or RI-163 depending on whether the offer is made through the organization. It restated that a lawyer may not share legal fees with a nonlawyer (5.4(a)) or give anything of value to a nonlawyer for recommending the lawyer’s services (7.2(c)). |
| RI-199 | 1994 | A Michigan lawyer may pay an out-of-state law firm, whose lawyers are not licensed in Michigan, a referral fee under MRPC 1.5(e) for a divorce case in a Michigan court, because they are lawyers for purposes of 1.5(e); the terms must comply with the ethics rules of both jurisdictions. It described fee splitting under 1.5(e) as an exception to 7.2(c). |
| RI-224 | 1995 | Assuming the clients were advised of and did not object to the original referral-fee arrangements (MRPC 1.5(e)): a lawyer who receives fees subject to another lawyer’s referral-fee claim must account for them and keep the disputed portion in a trust account, and the referring lawyer may contact the referred clients but may not raise the fee dispute. |
| RI-223 | 1995 | On prepaid legal service plans: a lawyer may participate in a for-profit plan that does not refer clients or recommend the lawyer; if the purpose of advertising is to refer clients or recommend the lawyer’s services, the lawyer may pay nothing other than the reasonable cost of advertising unless the service satisfies MRPC 6.3(b) (7.2(c)). Where the lawyer is paid the fees expected and no less, there is no sharing of the legal fee with the plan sponsor in contravention of 5.4(a). |
| RI-229 | 1995 | A lawyer may be on a church’s list of member lawyers offering special will-drafting rates for a bequest to the church; the church receives nothing from the lawyer for the listing, and its communication of the offer is not “receiving value” under MRPC 7.2(c). |
| RI-234 | 1995 | Before a fee division the client must be advised of the lawyers’ identity, whom to contact, the services each will provide and who is responsible, and both the referring and receiving lawyer must see that the client is advised and does not object (MRPC 1.5(e)). The referring lawyer need not assume responsibility for the case, the total fee charged the client must be reasonable under 1.5(a), and the split between the lawyers (here one-third of one-third) is a matter of contract. |
| RI-294 | 1997 | A referral-fee agreement made before any conflict arose is not nullified by MRPC 1.7(b), and the referring lawyer’s later unrelated lawsuit against a client of the receiving firm does not affect the enforceability of a valid fee-sharing agreement under 1.5(e). |
| RI-305 | 1998 | A partnership agreement may require a departing partner to pay the firm a percentage of the net contingent fee on cases clients take with the partner, but because that is a division of a fee between lawyers not in the same firm, the requirements of MRPC 1.5(e) must be complied with for it to become operative in any case. |
| RI-325 | 2001 | A lawyer may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services other than the reasonable cost of advertising or communication (MRPC 7.2(c)). A lawyer may not enter a business arrangement with an estate-planning kit company whose representatives engage in conduct the MRPC prohibits that can be attributed to the lawyer; referrals given only to one lawyer create the appearance of a quid pro quo that constitutes giving value for a recommendation. |
| RI-340 | 2007 | A Michigan lawyer may be listed, without charge, on an out-of-state firm’s website as the local lawyer to whom it refers cases, if the website discloses that it solicits clients for the firm and its referral counsel; the program is marketing, not a lawyer referral service, and participation is not the subject of MRPC 7.2(c)(ii) or 6.3(b). It noted that 7.2(c)(ii), unlike the Model Rule, conditions participation in a referral service on Rule 6.3(b). |
| RI-366 | 2014 | A lawyer’s participation in a coupon marketing arrangement in which the vendor keeps a percentage of each coupon’s purchase price is fee sharing rather than advertising and violates MRPC 5.4(a)’s prohibition against sharing fees with nonlawyers. |
| RI-382 | 2021 | Michigan lawyers may divide fees with out-of-state lawyers if the division complies with the ethics rules of both jurisdictions. It called Michigan’s MRPC 1.5(e) comparatively permissive and advised that, in cross-border referrals, Michigan lawyers should study the other jurisdiction’s counterpart rule for compliance. |
What our research did not find
- No Michigan statute on dividing fees, sharing fees with nonlawyers, paying for recommendations or choice of law was found. The Michigan Compiled Laws were screened by section number only, because the Legislature’s keyword search answered HTTP 400 (searched October 25, 2026). This page does not say Michigan has no statute on these points. The solicitation statutes our research holds (MCL 750.410, 750.410b and 600.919(2)) go to Rule 7.3 and are not described here.
- No Michigan court decision or ethics opinion applying Rule 8.5(b) was found (searched October 25, 2026).
- No Michigan Supreme Court amending order and no 1988 adopting order is held, so no rule part on this page carries an effective date.
- Rule 7.2(c) was amended after 1990 by an order not held. R-6, R-8, RI-9, RI-17, RI-24, RI-32, RI-36 and RI-75 (1989–1991) quote earlier words of its referral-service exception, so each construed the earlier wording and its holding is stated as its own. Whether their analysis carries over to the current (i)–(iii) form is open.
- Sherbow (Mich. Ct. App. 2019) was reversed in part by Sherbow (Mich. 2021) on whether the referring lawyer needs an attorney-client relationship; this page does not cite the 2019 decision for that point. The State Bar notes on RI-114, RI-224 and RI-234 that their analysis “may be impacted by” Sherbow (2021); that is a Bar annotation, not a stated treatment.
- MCR 8.121, the court rule on which RI-114 and RI-122 rely, is not held as a rule part (out of scope: contingent fees in general). This page states what those opinions advised, not the court rule’s own terms.
- Rule 6.3(b), which Rule 7.2(c)(ii) incorporates, and Rule 5.4(c) are not held, so this page does not state Rule 6.3(b)’s requirements. Ethics opinion RI-15 (a for-profit intermediary’s referral plan under Rule 5.4(c)) is held but links only to Rule 5.4 as a whole and is not cited here.
- Authorities under the former Code (DR 2-107, DR 2-103) are deferred, and ten cited leads are unread: RI-7, RI-30, RI-31, RI-133, RI-191, CI-893, CI-1192, Abrams v. Susan Feldstein PC (1997), Dupree v. Malpractice Research Inc (1989) and State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Jaques (1979).
- Every decision was read from a CourtListener copy; the courts’ own copies were not collected. Babi is dated January 11, 2024 (approved for publication); its slip also prints November 21, 2023. No citation is held for Sherbow (2021).
- Later treatment of every Michigan authority on this page has not been searched. This page states what each authority held, not that it remains good law.
Frequently asked questions
Can I share a referral fee with a lawyer in Michigan?
Yes, under Rule 1.5(e) of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved, and the total fee is reasonable. In Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v Fieger & Fieger, PC (2021), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the referring lawyer must have an attorney-client relationship with the referred client, which may be limited to advising the client to seek the other lawyer’s services if both show an intent to enter that relationship.
Is there a cap on referral fees in Michigan?
Rule 1.5(e) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the total fee be reasonable, and it does not require the division to be in proportion to the services each lawyer performs. State Bar of Michigan ethics opinion RI-234 (1995) advised that the total fee is the fee charged to the client and that the split between the lawyers is a matter of contract. Opinions RI-114 and RI-122 (1992) advised that in a personal-injury or wrongful-death case MCR 8.121 limits the total fee of all lawyers to one-third of the recovery; this page does not state that court rule’s own terms.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Michigan?
No, not by the rule’s words. Rule 1.5(e) requires that the client be advised of and not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved, and that the total fee be reasonable; neither part asks for the client’s agreement in writing. In Law Offices of Jeffrey Sherbow, PC v Fieger & Fieger, PC (2021), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the party challenging a referral-fee agreement under Rule 1.5(e) bears the burden of proving the violation.
Can a Michigan lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
State Bar of Michigan ethics opinions RI-199 (1994) and RI-382 (2021) advised that a referral fee between a Michigan lawyer and an out-of-state lawyer must comply with the ethics rules of both jurisdictions. RI-122 (1992) advised that in a personal-injury or wrongful-death case tried in a Michigan court, a Michigan lawyer may not divide a fee under Rule 1.5(e) with an out-of-state lawyer where the total fee of all lawyers exceeds MCR 8.121’s one-third, even if the other state allows more. No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.
Sources
- Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.5, 5.4, 7.2, 8.5), fetched October 25, 2026: courts.michigan.gov
- 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.