Short answer. North Dakota lets lawyers who are not in the same firm divide a fee only if the division of fee is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer, by written agreement, assumes joint responsibility for the representation; after consultation, the client consents in writing to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and the total fee is reasonable (Rule 1.5(e) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct). The rule states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. The State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee (advisory) has said, under the rule as it stood in 1993, that a lawyer may not pay a suspended lawyer a one-third “referral fee” for sending him her former clients, because she would perform no legal services and could assume no responsibility for the representation (Opinion 93-01).
Sources read October 28, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 28, 2026. Rules text is as printed on the North Dakota court system’s rule pages (ndcourts.gov), fetched October 28, 2026. The Ethics Committee opinions are read from Internet Archive copies of the State Bar Association of North Dakota’s PDFs. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
North Dakota’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | North Dakota’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 1.5(e), North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct | N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(e) |
| Written client consent | Required in every division (since August 1, 2006): after consultation, the client consents in writing to the participation of all the lawyers involved; where the lawyers rely on joint responsibility, each lawyer assumes it by written agreement | Rule 1.5(e)(1)–(2) |
| Notice to the client | Consultation and the client’s written consent to the participation of all the lawyers involved; the client need not be told the share each lawyer is to receive; the rule sets no deadline for the consent | Rule 1.5(e)(2); Comment [7] |
| Proportion to services or joint responsibility | Required, one or the other: the division of fee is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer, by written agreement, 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 | Our search of N.D.C.C. chapters 27-11 to 27-14 (read in full), with the chapter lists of titles 12.1, 26.1 and 43 screened, found none addressing fee division, referral payments, runners or solicitation of legal business; the whole Century Code was not full-text searched | Our search of the North Dakota Century Code, October 28, 2026 |
What Rule 1.5(e) says
Rule 1.5(e) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words (N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(e)), of which paragraph (e)(2) has been in force since August 1, 2006; the start dates of the lead-in, (e)(1) and (e)(3) are not held in our research:
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the division of fee is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer, by written agreement, assumes joint responsibility for the representation;
(2) after consultation, the client consents in writing to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and
(3) the total fee is reasonable.
Before August 1, 2006, paragraph (e)(2) required only that the client, after consultation, not object to the participation of all the lawyers. Comment [7] to Rule 1.5 still describes that older test (“the client is consulted and does not object”); the rule’s words control.
What the client must agree to in writing
After consultation, the client must consent in writing to the participation of all the lawyers involved (Rule 1.5(e)(2), these words in force since August 1, 2006). Where the lawyers rely on joint responsibility rather than proportion to services, each lawyer must assume it by written agreement (Rule 1.5(e)(1)).
Before August 1, 2006, the rule required only that the client, after consultation, not object to the participation of all the lawyers. In Opinion 00-11 (advisory), the Ethics Committee advised that a form agreement’s requirement of the client’s prior written consent did not cure a division that failed Rule 1.5(e)(1).
What must be disclosed to the client
North Dakota does not require telling the client the share each lawyer will receive. Rule 1.5(e)(2) requires consultation and the client’s written consent to the participation of all the lawyers involved, and Comment [7] says paragraph (e) “does not require disclosure to the client of the share that each lawyer is to receive.” The rule sets no deadline for the consent.
Proportionality or joint responsibility
One or the other is required: the division of fee must be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer, by written agreement, must assume joint responsibility for the representation (Rule 1.5(e)(1)). The total fee must also be reasonable (Rule 1.5(e)(3)).
The State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee (advisory) has applied these terms:
- No services, no responsibility. Under Rule 1.5(e) as it then stood (the client, after consultation, need only not object), a lawyer may not pay a suspended lawyer a one-third “referral fee” for sending him her former clients: she would perform no legal services and could assume no responsibility for the representation, so the arrangement met neither Rule 1.5(e) nor Rule 5.4(a). The Committee relied on the principle that a lawyer should not be compensated for doing nothing more than referring a client (Opinion 93-01, 1993).
- A percentage for referrals. A North Dakota lawyer may not sign an out-of-state entity’s form agreement to receive internet-sourced referrals in exchange for a share of the fees. If the entity is a law firm, the division fails Rule 1.5(e)(1): it is not in proportion to services, and the agreement has the referring firm assume no joint responsibility, financial or otherwise; the form’s requirement of the client’s prior written consent does not cure that (Opinion 00-11, 2000).
- Oral agreements and suspended lawyers. A lawyer who agreed to divide fees with referring lawyers later suspended may pay them, under Rule 1.5(e), only for services rendered before the suspension. A written agreement’s percentages may be honored only if they were proportionate to the referring lawyer’s services, not consideration for the referral itself. Under Rule 1.5(e), an oral fee-division agreement can divide only in proportion to work actually done (Opinion 04-02, 2004).
- Not a division. Paying out-of-state lawyers by the hour or project, out of the North Dakota lawyer’s own flat fee, for consulting and drafting on which the client pays them nothing and the North Dakota lawyer stays fully responsible, is not a division of fees; if the arrangement became a fee split, Rule 1.5(e) would apply (Opinion 05-02, 2005).
Referring a case out of North Dakota, or into it
North Dakota letters its choice-of-law rule 8.5(c), not 8.5(b); North Dakota’s Rule 8.5(b) extends its disciplinary authority to lawyers not admitted there. Rule 8.5(c) says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when North Dakota exercises its disciplinary authority (N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 8.5(c)). The start date of these words is not held in our research:
(c) 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.
Divisions with out-of-state lawyers. Rule 1.5(e) governs a division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. The Ethics Committee (advisory) applied it in Opinion 00-11 to an out-of-state entity’s internet referral agreement, if the entity is a law firm; in Opinion 05-02 it advised that paying out-of-state lawyers for consulting and drafting, as described above, is not a division of fees unless the arrangement becomes a fee split (both described above). Opinion 05-02 also warned that the out-of-state lawyers’ work may be unauthorized practice (Rule 5.5).
We hold no North Dakota court decision or ethics opinion construing Rule 8.5(c) for a fee division or referral.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. Rule 7.2(c), in force since March 1, 2016 (N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 7.2(c)): “(c) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may” “(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule;” “(2) pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or legal service organization; and” “(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17.” From March 1, 2004 to March 1, 2016, the same words were lettered Rule 7.2(d) (former Rule 7.2(d)). North Dakota’s rule has no exception for reciprocal referral agreements or nominal gifts, and its referral-service exception reaches only not-for-profit services. Comment [4] to Rule 7.2 allows paying a lead generator only if it does not recommend the lawyer, the payment is consistent with Rules 1.5(e) and 5.4, and its communications are consistent with Rule 7.1. The Ethics Committee (advisory) has advised that a per-referral fee to a referral service is allowed only where every entity making up the service is not-for-profit (Opinion 06-01, under former Rule 7.2(d), whose words are today’s Rule 7.2(c)), and that percentage-of-fee payments to a nonlawyer for referrals are barred fee sharing under Rule 5.4(a) (Opinion 96-13, to the extent the payments buy referrals rather than ordinary firm expenses; Opinion 00-11, where the entity paid is not a law firm).
- 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, partners, 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, under Rule 1.17, pay to the estate or other representatives 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 the 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)(1)–(4), N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 5.4(a)). The North Dakota Supreme Court has disciplined lawyers for sharing fees with nonlawyers (Nassif, 1996; McCray, 2008, both below).
- Legal assistants. Rule 1.5(i), in force since July 1, 2022: “(i) A lawyer may not split legal fees with a legal assistant nor pay a legal assistant for the referral of legal business. A lawyer may compensate a legal assistant based on the quantity and quality of the legal assistant’s work and value of that work to a law practice. The legal assistant’s compensation may not be contingent, by advance agreement, upon the outcome of a case or upon the profitability of the lawyer’s practice.” Before July 1, 2022, the same words stood as Rule 1.5(g). Comment [12] adds: “[12] A lawyer may not split fees with a legal assistant, whether characterized as splitting of contingent fees, “forwarding” fees or other sharing of legal fees. The lawyer’s obligation is to pay the legal assistant according to the employment agreement. There is no general prohibition against a lawyer recognizing the contribution of the legal assistant with a discretionary bonus. Likewise, a lawyer is not prohibited from compensating a legal assistant who aids materially in a practice with compensation greater than that generally paid to legal assistants in the geographic area working in less lucrative law practices.”
- Solicitation. In-person, telephone or real-time solicitation for pecuniary gain is barred except of a lawyer or a person with a family, personal or prior professional relationship (Rule 7.3(a)). In McCray (2008) the North Dakota Supreme Court held that funding seminars run by a nonlawyer that recommended the firm, to solicit clients, violated Rule 7.3(a) (para. 25). This page does not quote Rule 7.3.
- Statutes. Our search of the North Dakota Century Code (chapters 27-11 to 27-14 read in full; chapter lists of titles 12.1, 26.1 and 43 screened; October 28, 2026) found no North Dakota statute addressing fee division, referral payments, runners or solicitation of legal business. The whole Century Code was not full-text searched.
North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matter of Disciplinary Action Against Nassif | 547 N.W.2d 541 | 1996 | The North Dakota Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer who, among many violations, routinely split fees with nonlawyer “paralegals” he treated as independent contractors (he admitted giving half of a client’s retainer to a paralegal); it concurred that this violated Rule 5.4’s bar on sharing fees with a nonlawyer. |
| In the Matter of the Application for Disciplinary Action Against Loren C. McCray | 2008 ND 162; 755 N.W.2d 835 | 2008 | The North Dakota Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for six months and one day. Reversing the hearing panel, it held that paying about 95 percent of the firm’s fee revenue to companies controlled by the nonlawyer who ran the seminars recommending the firm was sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer in violation of Rule 5.4(a) (paras. 32-34), and that funding those seminars to solicit clients violated Rule 7.3(a) (para. 25). A separate opinion (Crothers, J., para. 51) would also have found that the payments violated former Rule 7.2(d), the bar on giving anything of value for recommending a lawyer’s services; the per curiam did not decide that point. |
State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee opinions
These opinions are advisory. A lawyer who relies in good faith and reasonably on a written Ethics Committee opinion is not subject to sanction for that conduct (N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2(B), as quoted in Opinions 96-13, 00-11 and 06-01). As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched.
| Opinion | Year | What it said |
|---|---|---|
| Letter opinion of September 15, 1989 | 1989 | Representing a nonlawyer transportation specialist, acting as agent for several employee-claimants, on compensation contingent on the outcome would be impermissible fee sharing with a nonlawyer under Rule 5.4. A payment by the specialist to the lawyer for representing the employees would have to meet Rule 1.8(f), including each employee’s consent. |
| Opinion 93-01 | 1993 | Under Rule 1.5(e) as it then stood (the client, after consultation, need only not object), a lawyer may not pay a suspended lawyer a one-third “referral fee” for sending him her former clients: she would perform no legal services and could assume no responsibility for the representation, so the arrangement met neither Rule 1.5(e) nor Rule 5.4(a). The Committee relied on the principle that a lawyer should not be compensated for doing nothing more than referring a client. |
| Opinion 96-13 | 1996 | A law firm’s payments to a nonlawyer company for access to its electronic insurer-to-law-firm information system, capped at ten percent of the legal fees on each case and buying the firm the sole North Dakota place in a system through which insurers choose counsel, would be improper fee sharing under Rule 5.4(a) to the extent they pay for that place and the referrals rather than ordinary firm expenses. The Committee looked past the form of the payments to their purpose. |
| Opinion 00-09 | 2000 | A lawyer who becomes a salaried employee of a title company and is paid a salary for work product the company sells is not, on those facts, sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer under Rule 5.4(a). The Committee concluded that the employment would instead violate Rule 5.4(d) and Rule 5.5(b) (assisting unauthorized practice) unless conditions it stated were met. |
| Opinion 00-11 | 2000 | A North Dakota lawyer may not sign an out-of-state entity’s form agreement to receive internet-sourced referrals in exchange for a share of the fees (a percentage printed “thirty three and _ percent” of contingent fees, or 20 percent of hourly fees). If the entity is a law firm, the division fails Rule 1.5(e)(1): it is not in proportion to services, and the agreement has the referring firm assume no joint responsibility, financial or otherwise; the form’s requirement of the client’s prior written consent does not cure that. If the entity is not a law firm, the payments are fee-sharing referral payments to a nonlawyer barred by Rule 5.4(a), following Opinion 96-13. |
| Opinion 04-02 | 2004 | A lawyer who agreed to divide fees with referring lawyers later suspended may pay them, under Rule 1.5(e), only for services rendered before the suspension; paying for services after it would be an ethical violation. A written agreement’s percentages (15 percent of the fees or 6 percent of the settlement) may be honored only if they were proportionate to the referring lawyer’s services, not consideration for the referral itself; otherwise the lawyers must agree a figure proportionate to the pre-suspension work. Under Rule 1.5(e), an oral fee-division agreement can divide only in proportion to work actually done. |
| Opinion 05-02 | 2005 | Paying out-of-state lawyers by the hour or project, out of the North Dakota lawyer’s own flat fee, for consulting and drafting on which the client pays them nothing and the North Dakota lawyer stays fully responsible, is not a division of fees (it is like retaining an expert); if the arrangement became a fee split, Rule 1.5(e) would apply. The Committee warned that the out-of-state lawyers’ work may be unauthorized practice (Rule 5.5). |
| Opinion 06-01 | 2006 | Under former Rule 7.2(d) (whose words are today’s Rule 7.2(c)), a North Dakota lawyer may join an internet lawyer referral service that charges a fee for each referral resulting in an engagement only if every entity making up the service operates on a not-for-profit basis (Rule 7.2(d)(2)); a service incorporated as a North Dakota nonprofit or exempt under section 501(c)(3) qualifies. Paying fees to a third party to receive referrals otherwise falls within Rule 7.2(d)’s prohibition, and per-referral fees are not the reasonable costs of advertisements that Rule 7.2(d)(1) allows. |
What our research did not find
- Ethics Committee Opinions 08-06 (a lawyer referral service with an annual fee, under former Rule 7.2(d)) and 11-06 (a pre-paid legal services referral agreement, Rules 1.5 and 7.2) are listed in the State Bar Association of North Dakota’s index but could not be obtained (no Internet Archive copy; the Bar’s file host refuses requests). Their holdings are not in our research, and this page does not state them.
- Rule 7.3 (solicitation) is not among the rule parts this page draws on, and this page does not quote it. Our research holds North Dakota’s Rule 7.3, with McCray (2008 ND 162, para. 25, Rule 7.3(a)) and Ethics Committee Opinion 05-05 (a seminar referral form used to make real-time contact violates Rule 7.3).
- The start dates of today’s Rule 1.5(e) lead-in, (e)(1) and (e)(3), the Rule 5.4(a) parts and the Rule 8.5(c) parts are not held: their words are the same on every version page the court publishes, and the oldest held page gives only the date that version of the whole rule began. This page gives no start date for them.
- Where North Dakota’s bar on paying for a recommendation stood before March 1, 2004 is not held (the 1997-2004 Rule 7.2 is Firm Names and Letterheads). Rule 1.5(i)’s words stood as Rule 1.5(g) before July 1, 2022; that earlier letter is not loaded.
- No North Dakota statute addressing fee division, referral payments, runners or solicitation of legal business was found. Our search read N.D.C.C. chapters 27-11 to 27-14 in full and screened the chapter lists of titles 12.1, 26.1 and 43 (October 28, 2026); a full-text search of the whole Century Code was not run, because the Legislature’s search is script-driven. This page does not say North Dakota has no such statute.
- No North Dakota court decision applying Rule 1.5(e) or former DR 2-107 to a division of fees between lawyers, applying Rule 7.2(c) (since March 1, 2016) to a payment for a recommendation, or applying Rule 8.5(c) was found (CourtListener, searched October 28, 2026). McCray (2008) discusses former Rule 7.2(d) only in Justice Crothers’s separate opinion (para. 51); the per curiam did not apply it.
- No Ethics Committee opinion deciding which jurisdiction’s rules govern a fee division, referral or solicitation was found in the Bar’s opinion index (an Internet Archive capture of August 17, 2021, screened by title and summary on October 28, 2026). Opinions 98-02, 87-06 and 91-08 touch Rule 8.5, but none decides that question.
- The Ethics Committee opinions in our research are Internet Archive copies of the Bar’s PDFs, ten of them OCR of scans; Opinion 04-02’s text layer is scrambled, so its quotes are fragments checked against the page images. The North Dakota Supreme Court’s own copy of McCray was not obtained; the CourtListener copy is held.
- Later treatment of every North Dakota 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 North Dakota?
Yes, under Rule 1.5(e) of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, if three conditions are met. A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the division of fee is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer, by written agreement, assumes joint responsibility for the representation; after consultation, the client consents in writing to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and the total fee is reasonable. The State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Committee (advisory) has said, under the rule as it stood in 1993, that a lawyer may not pay a suspended lawyer a one-third “referral fee” for sending him her former clients, because she would perform no legal services and could assume no responsibility for the representation (Opinion 93-01).
Is there a cap on referral fees in North Dakota?
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 of fee be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or that each lawyer, by written agreement, assume joint responsibility for the representation.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in North Dakota?
Yes. Since August 1, 2006, Rule 1.5(e)(2) has required that, after consultation, the client consent in writing to the participation of all the lawyers involved. Where the lawyers rely on joint responsibility, each lawyer must assume it by written agreement (Rule 1.5(e)(1)). Comment [7] says paragraph (e) “does not require disclosure to the client of the share that each lawyer is to receive.” Before August 1, 2006, the rule required only that the client, after consultation, not object to the participation of all the lawyers.
Can a North Dakota lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
Rule 1.5(e) governs a division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. The Ethics Committee (advisory) has addressed out-of-state arrangements. In Opinion 00-11 it advised that a North Dakota lawyer may not sign an out-of-state entity’s form agreement to receive internet-sourced referrals in exchange for a share of the fees; if the entity is a law firm, the division fails Rule 1.5(e)(1) because it is not in proportion to services and the agreement has the referring firm assume no joint responsibility, financial or otherwise, and the form’s requirement of the client’s prior written consent does not cure that; if the entity is not a law firm, the payments are fee-sharing referral payments to a nonlawyer barred by Rule 5.4(a). In Opinion 05-02 it advised that paying out-of-state lawyers by the hour or project, out of the North Dakota lawyer’s own flat fee, for consulting and drafting on which the client pays them nothing and the North Dakota lawyer stays fully responsible, is not a division of fees; if the arrangement became a fee split, Rule 1.5(e) would apply. Which jurisdiction’s rules apply when North Dakota exercises its disciplinary authority is set by Rule 8.5(c); we hold no North Dakota court decision or ethics opinion construing it for a fee division or referral.
Sources
- North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.5, 5.4, 7.2, 8.5), as printed on the North Dakota court system’s rule pages, fetched October 28, 2026: Rule 1.5, Rule 5.4, Rule 7.2, Rule 8.5
- Former Rule 7.2(d) (March 1, 2004 to March 1, 2016), from the court’s earlier version page of Rule 7.2, fetched October 28, 2026: ndcourts.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.