Short answer. Mississippi lets lawyers in different firms divide a fee only if the division is in proportion to the services each lawyer performs or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; 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 states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share.
Sources read October 18, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 27, 2026. Rules text is as printed in the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct published by the Mississippi courts, fetched October 18, 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
Mississippi’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | Mississippi’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 1.5(e), Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct | Miss. R. Prof. Conduct, PDF p. 20 |
| Basis for a division | In proportion to services performed, or by written agreement with the client with joint responsibility | Rule 1.5(e)(1) |
| Written client agreement | Required only for a division by joint responsibility, not for one in proportion to services | Rule 1.5(e)(1) |
| Notice to the client | The client must be advised of, and not object to, the participation of all the lawyers involved; the rule does not require disclosure of each lawyer’s share | Rule 1.5(e)(2) |
| Reasonable total fee | Required | Rule 1.5(e)(3) |
| Cap on the secondary lawyer’s share | None stated in Rule 1.5(e) | Rule 1.5(e) |
| Statutes | Champerty, maintenance and solicitation statutes exist (Miss. Code §§ 97-9-11 to 97-9-23) but were not obtained in our research | Miss. Code §§ 97-9-11 to 97-9-23 (not obtained) |
What Rule 1.5(e) says
Rule 1.5(e) of the Mississippi 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 18, 2026 (Miss. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(e), PDF p. 20):
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;
(2) the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
The date these words of Rule 1.5(e) took effect is not established in our sources. They are stated here as in force as printed when fetched in October 2026.
What the client must agree to in writing
A writing is needed in only one case. A division in proportion to the services each lawyer performs needs no written agreement with the client. A division on any other basis is allowed only where, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation (Rule 1.5(e)(1)).
Unlike ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), Mississippi’s rule does not require the client’s agreement to the share each lawyer receives, or that the agreement be confirmed in writing.
What must be disclosed to the client
The client must be advised of, and not object to, the participation of all the lawyers involved (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). The rule does not require disclosure of the share each lawyer receives.
Proportionality or joint responsibility
A division is allowed only if the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)(3)) and either it is in proportion to the services each lawyer performs, or by written agreement with the client each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation (Rule 1.5(e)(1)).
In Bailey Law PLLC v. Morgan & Morgan PLLC (In re Estate of Bourne), No. 2018-CA-00143-COA (Miss. Ct. App. 2019), the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court abused its discretion in apportioning fees between two firms, and reversed and remanded for it to apply the McKee factors and a Rule 1.5(e) analysis and reapportion the fees.
Referring a case out of Mississippi, or into it
Mississippi’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 8.5(b), tracks ABA Model Rule 8.5(b). It says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when Mississippi exercises its disciplinary authority (Miss. R. Prof. Conduct 8.5(b), PDF p. 141):
(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 lawyer’s 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.
Our research records that Mississippi’s Rule 8.5 had no choice-of-law paragraph before an amendment effective July 1, 2026. The order making that amendment was not found, so the paragraph’s effective date is not established.
Receiving a case into Mississippi. In Harang v. Barrett (In re Guardianship of Baker), 31 So. 3d 1285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), the Court of Appeals held that fee splitting between a lawyer licensed in Mississippi and a lawyer not licensed in Mississippi but properly admitted pro hac vice is governed by Rule 1.5(e).
Which state’s rules govern a particular cross-border referral is not settled by any Mississippi authority we found. No Mississippi court decision or ethics opinion applying Rule 8.5(b) was found.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. “The lawyer shall 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 or a written or recorded communication permitted by these Rules and may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service or to other legal service organization” (Rule 7.2(i)).
- Nonlawyers. A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except as Rule 5.4(a)(1)–(3) allows: payments to a deceased lawyer’s estate or specified persons under an agreement with the lawyer’s firm, partner or associate; the purchase price of a deceased, disabled or disappeared lawyer’s practice under Rule 1.17; and nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even one based in whole or in part on profit-sharing (Rule 5.4(a)).
- Solicitation. A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a particular prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family, close personal, or prior professional relationship when a significant motive is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain (Rule 7.3(a)). A lawyer’s written, recorded or electronic solicitation of professional employment from a particular prospective client known to need legal services in a particular matter, with whom the lawyer has no family, close personal, or prior professional relationship, must include the words “solicitation material” on the outside envelope or at the beginning and end of any recorded communication (Rule 7.3(c)).
- Statutes. Mississippi has statutes on champerty, maintenance and solicitation (Miss. Code §§ 97-9-11 to 97-9-23). Our research could not obtain their text, so this page does not state what they say.
Mississippi 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. The words of Rule 7.3 before November 3, 2005, and of Rule 7.2 before 2003, were not reviewed; decisions from before those dates construed earlier wording, and their holdings are theirs.
| Case | Citation | Year | What it held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mississippi State Bar v. An Attorney | 551 So. 2d 129 | 1989 | Mississippi Supreme Court disciplinary decision describing the attorneys’ conduct toward the client as illustrating the rationale behind Rule 7.3’s prohibition of direct solicitation of clients. |
| Emil v. The Mississippi Bar | 690 So. 2d 301 | 1997 | Mississippi Supreme Court disciplinary decision; count six charged violations of Rules 5.4(a), 7.2(c) and 8.4(a), which the Court described as prohibiting the sharing of legal fees with a nonlawyer whether directly or through the actions of another. |
| Attorney AAA v. The Mississippi Bar | 735 So. 2d 294 | 1999 | Mississippi Supreme Court held there was sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to find that Attorney AAA shared fees in the Jones case, and that the Tribunal did not err in finding a violation of Rule 5.4. |
| In re Holmes (Bolen v. Crowe) | 304 B.R. 292 | 2004 | U.S. Bankruptcy Court (N.D. Miss.) held that a lawyer could not rely on Rule 5.4(a)(3)’s exception for nonlawyer employees’ compensation plans where the arrangement gave a nonlawyer employee a pecuniary interest directly dependent on a client’s decision; the practice violated Bankruptcy Code § 504(a) and Mississippi Rule 5.4(a). |
| The Mississippi Bar v. Turnage | 919 So. 2d 36 | 2005 | Mississippi Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for four months for violations of Rules 5.3(b) and (c), 7.2(i), 7.3(a) and 8.4(a) and (d). |
| Harang v. Barrett | 31 So. 3d 1285 | 2010 | Mississippi Court of Appeals held that fee splitting between a lawyer licensed in Mississippi and a lawyer not licensed in Mississippi but properly admitted pro hac vice is governed by Rule 1.5(e). |
| Bailey Law PLLC v. Morgan & Morgan PLLC | No. 2018-CA-00143-COA | 2019 | Mississippi Court of Appeals held that the circuit court abused its discretion in apportioning fees between two firms, and reversed and remanded for it to apply the McKee factors and a Rule 1.5(e) analysis and reapportion the fees. |
Mississippi Bar ethics opinions
As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched. No Mississippi Bar ethics opinion we found decides a question under Rule 1.5(e). The opinions below apply the rules on nonlawyers, payment for recommendations and solicitation. Several predate today’s rule numbering; each is stated as the opinion read it.
| Opinion | Year | What it said |
|---|---|---|
| Opinion 33 | 1976 | A lawyer may not participate in a practice through which a company collects and retains any part of an attorney’s fee ostensibly the lawyer’s; Rule 5.4(a) prohibits sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. |
| Opinion 51 | 1979 | An arrangement in which a lawyer and a layperson prearrange for the lawyer to be recommended may violate the rules against solicitation, citing Rule 7.2(i). |
| Opinion 81 | 1983 | Absent an agreement of the kind Rule 5.4(a)(1) describes, a surviving lawyer may not compensate a deceased partner’s estate with a division of fees. |
| Opinion 91 | 1984 | Rule 5.4(a) does not apply to a medical consultant’s fees, which are separate and distinct from the attorney’s fees. |
| Opinion 94 | 1984 | On Rule 7.3: no ethical impropriety in a lawyer accepting employment from the narrow group described. |
| Opinion 146 | 1988 | Under the 1987 Rule 7.3 and its comment, a law firm may ethically mail its brochure. |
| Opinion 154 | 1988 | Under Rule 5.4(a)(3), no prohibition on adopting either proposed compensation arrangement for nonlawyer employees. |
| Opinion 156 | 1988 | A lawyer presenting an educational seminar may not directly solicit business there from potential clients known to need specific legal services (Rule 7.3). |
| Opinion 199 | 1992 | Agreeing with an ABA opinion that the arrangement described does not violate Rule 5.4’s bar on sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer. |
| Opinion 209 | 1993 | The arrangement described is governed by Rules 5.4 and 5.5; Rule 5.4(a) bars sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, and Rule 7.2(i) bars giving anything of value for recommending the lawyer’s services. |
| Opinion 216 | 1994 | The anything-of-value rule (then 7.2(c), today’s 7.2(i)) does not by itself prohibit a legal service provider’s advertising of a firm’s services, but the provider’s in-person marketing strategy violates Rule 7.3’s prohibition of in-person solicitation for profit. |
| Opinion 232 | 1996 | Unless a corporation’s solicitation is limited to letters and advertising circulars to persons not known to need tax advice, the proposed arrangement violates Rule 7.3. |
| Opinion 256 | 2008 | A lawyer’s promise to share legal fees with a charitable organization violates Rule 5.4(a), and the advertisement also implicates Rule 7.2(i). |
What our research did not find
- The Mississippi Code could not be obtained from a free source on October 18, 2026. The champerty, maintenance and solicitation statutes (Miss. Code §§ 97-9-11 to 97-9-23) and the attorney sections of Title 73, chapter 3 exist but are not quoted or summarized here. Sneed v. Ford Motor Co. (1999) decides under §§ 97-9-11, -15, -17 and -23. This page does not say Mississippi has no statute on referrals or solicitation.
- No Mississippi Bar ethics opinion deciding a question under Rule 1.5(e) was found (searched October 18, 2026). The fee-division authority we hold is Harang v. Barrett (2010) and Bailey Law v. Morgan & Morgan (2019).
- The order amending Rule 8.5 effective July 1, 2026 was not found, so the effective date of Rule 8.5(b) is not established. No Mississippi decision or ethics opinion construing Rule 8.5(b) was found (searched October 18, 2026).
- The dates the words of Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4(a) took effect are not established, so this page states them as in force as printed when fetched in October 2026. The words of Rule 7.3 before November 3, 2005, and of Rule 7.2 before 2003, were not reviewed; decisions and opinions from before those dates construed earlier wording.
- The Mississippi Bar’s ethics opinions were read from 2021 Internet Archive copies. An amendment or withdrawal after 2021 would not be seen.
- Later treatment of every Mississippi 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 Mississippi?
Yes, under Rule 1.5(e) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct. A fee may be divided between lawyers who are not in the same firm only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and the total fee is reasonable.
Is there a cap on referral fees in Mississippi?
Rule 1.5(e) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the total fee be reasonable. Mississippi’s statutes on champerty, maintenance and solicitation (Miss. Code §§ 97-9-11 to 97-9-23) exist but were not obtained in our research, so this page does not say whether any statute bears on a division.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Mississippi?
Only for a division not in proportion to services. Rule 1.5(e)(1) asks for a written agreement with the client where each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation. In every division, the client must be advised of and not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). Unlike ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), Mississippi’s rule does not require the client’s agreement to the share each lawyer receives, or that the agreement be confirmed in writing.
Can a Mississippi lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
In Harang v. Barrett, 31 So. 3d 1285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), the Mississippi Court of Appeals held that fee splitting between a lawyer licensed in Mississippi and a lawyer not licensed in Mississippi but properly admitted pro hac vice is governed by Rule 1.5(e). Which state’s rules govern a particular cross-border referral is not settled by any Mississippi authority we found.
Sources
- Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.5, 5.4, 7.2, 7.3, 8.5), fetched October 18, 2026: courts.ms.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.