Short answer. Montana lets lawyers in different firms divide a fee only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)). The rule states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share.
Sources read October 9, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 28, 2026. Rules text is as printed in the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, State Law Library of Montana copy on courts.mt.gov, fetched October 9, 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
Montana’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | Montana’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 1.5(e), Montana Rules of Professional Conduct | Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(e), PDF pp. 8–9 |
| Written client consent | Required in every division: the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing | Rule 1.5(e)(2) |
| Notice to the client | The client must agree to the share each lawyer will receive | Rule 1.5(e)(2) |
| Proportion to services or joint responsibility | Required: the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation | Rule 1.5(e)(1) |
| 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 | MCA 37-61-408(2) is quoted below only as printed in the 2019 edition of the Montana Code Annotated, not as current law. No other statute on dividing fees, sharing fees with nonlawyers or choice of law was found in the parts of the Montana Code Annotated searched | MCA 37-61-408(2), 2019 edition; MCA Title 37 ch. 61; Title 45 chs. 4, 6, 7, 8 (searched October 9, 2026) |
What Rule 1.5(e) says
Rule 1.5(e) of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, in force since April 1, 2004 (Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(e), PDF pp. 8–9):
(e) A division of a 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 each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;
(2) the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
The words of Rule 1.5(e) before April 1, 2004 are not held in our research. State Bar of Montana Ethics Opinions 950411 (1995) and 000209 (2000) quote the earlier rule, which provided for joint responsibility by written agreement with the client and required that the client be advised of the arrangement and not object.
What the client must agree to in writing
Every division between lawyers not in the same firm needs the client’s agreement to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement must be confirmed in writing (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). These are the words of ABA Model Rule 1.5(e)(2).
What must be disclosed to the client
The client must agree to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive (Rule 1.5(e)(2)).
Proportionality or joint responsibility
The division must be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer must assume joint responsibility for the representation (Rule 1.5(e)(1)), and the total fee must be reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)(3)). Montana’s Rule 1.5(e) has read this way since April 1, 2004.
In Pumphrey v. Empire Lath and Plaster, 2006 MT 255, a fee dispute between a law firm and its former associate who left with a contingent-fee client, the Montana Supreme Court held that Rule 1.5(e), revised in February 2004 to conform to ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), does not apply to dividing fees between a firm and a lawyer formerly associated with it. The Court adopted a time-proportional quantum meruit measure for the firm’s share.
Referring a case out of Montana, or into it
Montana’s choice-of-law rule is lettered 8.5(c), not 8.5(b). It follows ABA Model Rule 8.5(b). It says which rules of professional conduct apply when Montana exercises its disciplinary authority (Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 8.5(c), PDF p. 37):
(c) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this State and 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 state and jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and
(2) for any other conduct, the rules of the state and jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different state and jurisdiction, the rules of that state and 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.
The date these words took effect is not established in our research, so this page gives none.
No Montana court decision, ethics opinion or statute applying Rule 8.5(c) was found (searched October 9, 2026). No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. “A lawyer shall not compensate, give, or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services” except that a lawyer may pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by Rule 7.2; pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service; pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.19; refer clients to another lawyer or a nonlawyer professional under a reciprocal referral agreement not otherwise prohibited under the Rules, if the agreement is not exclusive and the client is informed of its existence and nature; and give nominal gifts as an expression of appreciation that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a lawyer’s services (Rule 7.2(b)(1)–(5)). In Ethics Opinion 030716 (2003), under the earlier Rule 7.2(c), the State Bar of Montana Ethics Committee said a proposed regional lawyer referral service of sole practitioners, charging member lawyers a yearly or per-referral fee, was not a not-for-profit lawyer referral service and was barred.
- Nonlawyers. A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except as Rule 5.4(a)(1)–(4) allows: an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner or associate providing for 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; payment, under Rule 1.19, of the agreed-upon purchase price of a deceased, disabled or disappeared lawyer’s practice to that lawyer’s estate or other representative; nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even one based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement; and sharing court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter (Rule 5.4(a)).
- Statutes. Montana Code Annotated 37-61-408, “Attorney prohibited from buying claim or demand for purpose of bringing action,” is held in our research only as printed in the 2019 edition; the current edition could not be fetched, so the words below are the 2019 edition’s, not a statement of current law (MCA 37-61-408(2), Montana Code Annotated 2019, Internet Archive copy of leg.mt.gov): “(2) An attorney may not, individually or by or in the name of another person, either before or after an action is brought, promise or give or procure to be promised or given a valuable consideration to any person as an inducement to placing or in consideration of having placed in the person’s hands or in the hands of another person a demand of any kind for the purpose of bringing an action. This subsection does not apply to an agreement between attorneys to divide between themselves the compensation to be received.” State Bar of Montana Ethics Opinion 930927, applying the earlier wording of Rule 7.2, pointed to the possible violation of 37-61-408(2) by payments to third persons for referral of cases, without deciding it.
Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pumphrey v. Empire Lath and Plaster | 2006 MT 255; 334 Mont. 102; 144 P.3d 813 | 2006 | Montana Supreme Court, in a fee dispute between a law firm and its former associate who left with a contingent-fee client: Rule 1.5(e), revised in February 2004 to conform to ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), does not apply to dividing fees between a firm and a lawyer formerly associated with it; the Court adopted a time-proportional quantum meruit measure for the firm’s share. |
State Bar of Montana ethics opinions
As with the case, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched. Opinions 950411, 000209, 030716 and 930927 applied the wording of the rules before April 1, 2004; each is stated as the opinion read it.
| Opinion | Year | What it said |
|---|---|---|
| Opinion 850913 | Not stated in our research | Under the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, a client’s contingent-fee contract with a medical consulting organization raises fee sharing with a nonlawyer under Rule 5.4(a); following ABA Informal Op. 1375, the Committee said the rule is not violated if the client is fully aware of the arrangement and it is not a subterfuge for fee splitting, and cautioned that the lawyer’s independent judgment and control must not be influenced by the consulting firm. |
| Opinion 930927 | Not stated in our research | On an out-of-state firm paying runners to recommend it to injured railroad workers, applying Rule 7.2(c) as then worded (today’s 7.2(b)) and Rule 5.3(c): a lawyer practicing law in Montana who pays a non-lawyer for referring cases to the lawyer violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, and an out-of-state firm soliciting business from people in Montana for cases arising in Montana is governed by Montana’s Rules. It pointed to its Opinion 860723 on the possible violation of MCA 37-61-408(2) by payments to third persons for referral of cases, without deciding that question. It construed the earlier wording of Rule 7.2. The opinion states it is advisory only. |
| Opinion 950411 | 1995 | Under the Rules as they read before 2004: a lawyer may not share a contingent collection fee with a collection agency in exchange for nonlegal assistance (5.4(a)), though the lawyer may pay the agency for its services as an expense; referring lawyers may not receive a forwarding or referral fee unless Rule 1.5(e)’s conditions are met; and paying a referral fee to a collection agency is barred by the then Rule 7.2(c) (today’s 7.2(b)). |
| Opinion 000209 | 2000 | Quoting Rule 1.5(e) as it read before 2004, on a departing associate and his former employer dividing a contingent fee: the Committee declined the contract question but advised that Rule 1.5 requires contingent-fee agreements and fee-sharing agreements among lawyers to be in writing (1.5(c) and (e)), and that the disputed fee be held in trust until the lawyers agree. It predates Pumphrey (2006), which held 1.5(e) does not apply to a division between a firm and its former associate. |
| Opinion 030716 | 2003 | A proposed regional lawyer referral service of sole practitioners, charging member lawyers a yearly or per-referral fee, was not a not-for-profit lawyer referral service and was barred by the then Rule 7.2(c) (today’s 7.2(b)); the Committee said it would also be barred under the proposed new Rule 7.2(b) then before the Supreme Court. It construed the earlier wording. |
What our research did not find
- Montana Code Annotated 37-61-408(2) is carried only as printed in the 2019 edition of the Montana Code Annotated (Internet Archive copy of leg.mt.gov); the current edition could not be fetched (mca.legmt.gov presented a bot challenge, and law.justia.com refused), and 37-61-408(1) is not held. This page quotes 37-61-408(2) only as the 2019 edition’s words, not as current law, and gives it no date. It does not say Montana has no statute on paying for referrals.
- No other Montana statute on dividing fees, sharing fees with nonlawyers or choice of law was found in Montana Code Annotated Title 37, chapter 61, and Title 45, chapters 4, 6, 7 and 8 (searched October 9, 2026).
- The order that set today’s Rule 7.2(b) lead-in and 7.2(b)(2)–(5), and lettered the choice-of-law paragraph 8.5(c), is not identified; it came after July 21, 2010 and by January 1, 2020. So this page gives no effective date for Rules 5.4(a), 7.2(b) and 8.5(c). For 7.2(b), (b)(2) and (b)(3) our research holds two undated versions; this page uses the words of the current printed Rules.
- The words of Rule 1.5(e), the Rule 5.4(a) exceptions and Rule 7.3 before April 1, 2004 are not held. Ethics Opinions 950411 (1995), 000209 (2000) and 030716 (2003), and Ethics Opinion 930927 (which quotes the then Rule 7.2(c), today’s 7.2(b)), applied the earlier wording, and their holdings are stated as theirs. Opinions 950411 and 000209 quote the old Rule 1.5(e) (joint responsibility by written agreement with the client; client advised of and does not object).
- No Montana court decision applying Rule 5.4(a), Rule 7.2(b) or Rule 8.5(c) was found (searched October 9, 2026).
- Cited leads not read: the Model Rules adoption order (No. 84-303) and Ethics Opinion 860723. Ethics Opinion 951027 is not listed.
- Ethics Opinion 930927 carries no issue date in our research, so this page gives none.
- Later treatment of every Montana 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 Montana?
Yes, if the conditions of Rule 1.5(e) of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct are met. A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and the total fee is reasonable.
Is there a cap on referral fees in Montana?
Rule 1.5(e) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the total fee be reasonable, and that the division be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or that each lawyer assume joint responsibility for the representation. Montana Code Annotated 37-61-408 is held in our research only in its 2019 edition, so this page does not state what the current statute says.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Montana?
Yes. Rule 1.5(e)(2) requires, for every division between lawyers not in the same firm, that the client agree to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and that the agreement be confirmed in writing. These are the words of ABA Model Rule 1.5(e)(2).
Can a Montana lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
Rule 1.5(e) sets the conditions for a division between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Which state’s rules apply in a Montana disciplinary matter is set by Rule 8.5(c): for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the state and jurisdiction where the tribunal sits, unless the tribunal’s rules provide otherwise; for other conduct, the rules where the conduct occurred or, if its predominant effect is elsewhere, that jurisdiction’s rules. No authority we hold decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.
Sources
- Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.5, 5.4, 7.2, 8.5), State Law Library of Montana copy, fetched October 9, 2026: courts.mt.gov
- Montana Code Annotated 37-61-408(2), as printed in the 2019 edition (Internet Archive copy of leg.mt.gov): web.archive.org
- 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.