Short answer. South Carolina 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. A statute, S.C. Code § 40-5-360, makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to divide with or receive from an attorney any part of a fee, or any reward, as an inducement for placing a claim with an attorney, but it does not apply to an agreement between attorneys to divide between themselves the compensation to be received.
Sources read October 18, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 28, 2026. Rules text is as printed in the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 407, SCACR) on the South Carolina Judicial Branch’s rule pages at sccourts.org, fetched October 18, 2026. Statute text is as printed on scstatehouse.gov, fetched October 18, 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.
South Carolina’s referral fee rules at a glance
| Question | South Carolina’s answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 1.5(e), South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 407, SCACR) | Rule 407, SCACR, RPC 1.5(e) |
| 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); Matter of Jordan (2017) |
| Notice to the client | The client must agree to the share each lawyer will receive; Ethics Advisory Opinion 05-20 says the lawyers must tell the client the proportions | Rule 1.5(e)(2); Opinion 05-20 |
| 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); Matter of Jordan (2017) |
| 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 | No South Carolina statute regulating division of a fee between lawyers was found. § 40-5-360 makes it unlawful for anyone to divide with or receive from an attorney any part of a fee, or any reward, as an inducement for placing a claim with an attorney, and does not apply to an agreement between attorneys to divide their compensation. § 16-17-10 makes barratry a crime; see Paying for referrals, below | S.C. Code § 40-5-360; S.C. Code § 16-17-10 |
What Rule 1.5(e) says
Rule 1.5(e) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, as printed on the South Carolina Judicial Branch’s rule page fetched October 18, 2026 (Rule 407, SCACR, RPC 1.5(e)):
(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 date these words took effect is not established in our sources. The June 20, 2005 order adopting the Ethics 2000 revision (effective October 1, 2005) is not held, so the current words are stated here as printed when fetched in October 2026. Our research also holds a 2002 copy of the former rule page with the words before that revision; authorities from before October 1, 2005 construed the earlier wording.
What the client must agree to in writing
Every division 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)). In Matter of Jordan, 421 S.C. 594 (2017), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a lawyer violated Rule 1.5(e)(2) by entering fee-sharing arrangements in seven cases without the clients’ written confirmation of their agreement to the division.
Before October 1, 2005, Rule 1.5(e)(1) required a written agreement with the client for a division based on joint responsibility. Matter of Hart (2004) and Matter of Gorski (2006) applied that wording.
What must be disclosed to the client
The client must agree to the share each lawyer will receive (Rule 1.5(e)(2)). Ethics Advisory Opinion 05-20 reads the current rule to require that the lawyers tell the client the proportions of the fee, and that the client agree in writing to the joint representation, the fee split and its proportion.
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)). In Matter of Jordan (2017), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a lawyer violated Rule 1.5(e)(1) by sharing a fee on an even division.
Under the former Rule 1.5(e)(1), Ethics Advisory Opinion 05-20 said that without a written agreement for joint responsibility the fee should be split in proportion to services, and Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-13 said that, because of a fee-splitting arrangement, an attorney’s quantum meruit claim should be limited by Rule 1.5(e)(1).
Referring a case out of South Carolina, or into it
South Carolina’s choice-of-law rule, Rule 8.5(b), tracks ABA Model Rule 8.5(b), safe harbor included, and adds a sentence to (b)(2) on solicitation and advertising. It says which jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct apply when South Carolina exercises its disciplinary authority (Rule 407, SCACR, RPC 8.5(b)). Paragraph (b)(2) is in force since October 1, 2005; the date the opening words and paragraph (b)(1) took effect is not established in our sources.
(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. Any communication made for the purpose of soliciting clients from within South Carolina or advertising a lawyer’s services in South Carolina shall be deemed to have its predominant effect within South Carolina and shall be subject to the provisions of Rules 7.1 through 7.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 418, SCACR, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed or in which the matter may be pending.
Soliciting or advertising into South Carolina. Under the last sentence of Rule 8.5(b)(2), a communication soliciting clients from within South Carolina, or advertising a lawyer’s services in South Carolina, is deemed to have its predominant effect there, and is subject to Rules 7.1 through 7.5 and Rule 418, SCACR, wherever the lawyer is licensed or the matter is pending.
Dividing a fee across state lines. Rule 1.5(e) governs a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. We hold no South Carolina decision deciding choice of law for fee division, referral payments or solicitation. In re Berger (2014), Matter of Reitzel (2015) and Matter of Schiller (2017) cite Rule 8.5(b) for disciplinary choice of law; they have not been read in full. No South Carolina statute setting choice of law for lawyer conduct was found.
Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers
- Payment for referrals. Rule 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 legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service, which is itself not acting in violation of any Rule of Professional Conduct; and (3) pay for a law practice in accordance with Rule 1.17.” South Carolina’s rule has no reciprocal-referral or nominal-gift exception.
- What the ethics advisory opinions say about paying for referrals. Paying an online service part of the fees from clients it brings is barred, while reasonable per-hit advertising charges, not based on whether a user becomes a client, are allowed (01-03). A 10% commission to a nonlawyer for channeling work is barred (94-34). A for-profit referral service is not within Rule 7.2(c)(2) (13-05, 16-06, 99-01). The paid referral model is not a permissible option for a South Carolina lawyer (25-02).
- Nonlawyers. Rule 5.4(a): “(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 undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; (3) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, pursuant to the provision of Rule 1.17, pay to the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price; (4) a lawyer or a 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.” In Doe v. Condon (2000), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a proposed fee arrangement compensating nonlawyer employees based on the number and volume of cases they handle for an attorney violates the rule against fee-splitting with nonlawyers. In Matter of Poff (2011), it found that a lawyer violated the fee-sharing prohibition by sharing part of settlement and retainer fee proceeds with a nonlawyer assistant, and that the bonus did not fall within Rule 5.4(a)(4)’s exception for compensation plans.
- Statute. S.C. Code § 40-5-360 (Splitting fees with lay persons unlawful): “It is unlawful for a person, partnership, corporation, or association to divide with or receive from, or to agree to divide with or receive from, an attorney or group of attorneys, whether practicing in this State or elsewhere, any portion of a fee or compensation charged or received by an attorney or any valuable consideration or reward as an inducement for placing or in consideration of having placed in the hands of an attorney, or in the hands of another person a claim or demand of any kind for the purpose of collecting the claim or bringing an action on the claim or of representing the claimant in the pursuit of any civil remedy for the recovery of the claim. This section does not apply to an agreement between attorneys to divide between themselves the compensation to be received.” A violation is a misdemeanor; on conviction the person “must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” Ethics Advisory Opinion 25-02 expressly did not address whether the fee splitting proposed to it violates § 40-5-360.
- Barratry. S.C. Code § 16-17-10 (Barratry prohibited): a person who wilfully solicits or incites another to bring, prosecute or maintain an action, at law or in equity, in any court having jurisdiction within South Carolina and (a) thereby seeks to obtain employment for himself or for another to prosecute or defend the action, (b) has no direct and substantial interest in the relief sought, (c) does so with intent to distress or harass any party to the action, (d) directly or indirectly pays or promises to pay any money or other thing of value to, or the obligations of, any party to the action or (e) directly or indirectly pays or promises to pay any money or other thing of value to any other person to bring about the prosecution or maintenance of the action; or who wilfully brings, prosecutes or maintains such an action and (a) has no direct or substantial interest in the relief sought, (b) thereby seeks to defraud or mislead the court, (c) brings it with intent to distress or harass any party or (d) directly or indirectly receives any money or other thing of value to induce the bringing of the action: “Shall be guilty of the crime of barratry.” “The crime of barratry shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment of not more than two years, or both.” Our research holds no effective date for § 16-17-10, and no authority in it applies the section.
- Other statutes. Our research holds S.C. Code §§ 40-5-310 and 40-5-350 and the barratry sections §§ 16-17-20 to -50, but has not copied them into the research this page is drawn from. This page does not state what they provide.
South Carolina 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. Decisions from before October 1, 2005 construed the earlier wording of the rules, and their holdings are stated as theirs.
| Case | Citation | Year | What it held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doe v. Condon | 341 S.C. 22; 532 S.E.2d 879 | 2000 | Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a proposed fee arrangement compensating nonlawyer employees based on the number and volume of cases they handle for an attorney violates the rule against fee-splitting with nonlawyers (Rule 5.4). |
| In the Matter of Deddish | 347 S.C. 614; 557 S.E.2d 655 | 2001 | Supreme Court of South Carolina disciplinary decision; the lawyer acknowledged that his fee arrangement with a nonlawyer (Carter) was fee splitting proscribed by Rule 5.4. |
| In the Matter of McMillian | 359 S.C. 52; 596 S.E.2d 494 | 2004 | Supreme Court of South Carolina disciplinary decision in which the lawyer admitted violating, among other rules, Rule 5.4(a) (a lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer). |
| In the Matter of Hart | 361 S.C. 392; 605 S.E.2d 532 | 2004 | Supreme Court of South Carolina disciplinary decision: the lawyer and his referring attorney did not enter into the required written agreements with the clients on each attorney’s responsibility, in violation of Rule 1.5 (pre-2005 wording). |
| In the Matter of Gorski | 370 S.C. 357; 635 S.E.2d 95 | 2006 | Supreme Court of South Carolina disciplinary decision citing Rule 1.5(e) in its pre-2005 wording: a division between lawyers not in the same firm only in proportion to services or, by written agreement with the client, with each lawyer assuming joint responsibility. |
| Gignilliat v. Gignilliat, Savitz & Bettis, L.L.P. | 385 S.C. 452; 684 S.E.2d 756 | 2009 | Supreme Court of South Carolina said, in a footnote, that a law firm’s payment of tort damages does not constitute an impermissible fee-splitting arrangement under Rule 5.4(a), contrary to the circuit court’s view. |
| In the Matter of Poff | 394 S.C. 37; 714 S.E.2d 313 | 2011 | Supreme Court of South Carolina found clear and convincing evidence that a lawyer violated the fee-sharing prohibition by sharing part of settlement and retainer fee proceeds with a nonlawyer assistant. The bonus did not fall within Rule 5.4(a)(4)’s exception for compensation plans. |
| In the Matter of Jordan | 421 S.C. 594; 809 S.E.2d 409 | 2017 | Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a lawyer violated Rule 1.5(e)(1) by sharing a fee on an even division, and Rule 1.5(e)(2) by entering fee-sharing arrangements in seven cases without the clients’ written confirmation of their agreement to the division. |
| In the Matter of Henry H. Taylor | 421 S.C. 400; 807 S.E.2d 699 | 2017 | Supreme Court of South Carolina disciplinary decision in which the lawyer admitted violating Rule 5.4 (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer). |
| In the Matter of Owen | Opinion No. 28348 | 2026 | Supreme Court of South Carolina found that the lawyer’s conduct violated Rule 5.4 (fee-sharing with a nonlawyer). |
South Carolina Bar ethics advisory opinions
These opinions are advisory. As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched. Our research holds no issue date for them, so they are listed in number order without a year. Opinions from before October 1, 2005 applied the earlier wording of the rules; each is stated as the opinion read it.
| Opinion | What it said |
|---|---|
| Opinion 90-13 | Pre-2005 rule: because of the fee-splitting arrangement, the attorney’s quantum meruit claim should be limited by Rule 1.5(e)(1). |
| Opinion 90-40 | An attorney may not exchange help collecting medical fees for referrals of clients (Rule 7.2(c)). |
| Opinion 91-04 | An attorney who would help organize and maintain an organization in return for a place on its reduced-fee referral list would violate Rule 7.2(c). The opinion also raises Rule 5.4(a)’s bar on fee splitting for such an organization. |
| Opinion 92-28 | Of two legal service organization arrangements, the one in which the organization charges the client a single fee and passes part to the lawyer is fee splitting in violation of Rule 5.4(a); the other is permissible. |
| Opinion 93-05 | An agreement that an ancillary business will refer clients to the law firm runs afoul of Rule 7.2(c). |
| Opinion 93-09 | The proposal violates Rule 7.2(c) because the referral fee is not the “usual charges” of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service. |
| Opinion 94-34 | A lawyer paying a nonlawyer a 10% commission for channeling work to him violates Rule 7.2(c), and Rule 5.4 bars the fee sharing. |
| Opinion 96-08 | An arrangement for an attorney to pay a bail bondsman is prohibited by Rule 7.2(c); to the bondsman’s customers it will appear that he is recommending the attorney. |
| Opinion 97-02 | A paralegal bonus based on charges billed to a client is in essence a profit-sharing arrangement and is permitted (the then Rule 5.4(a)(3), today’s 5.4(a)(4)). |
| Opinion 98-32A | Rule 1.5(e) generally applies when one lawyer refers a case to another, but nothing in it precludes its application to the different situation the inquiry raised. |
| Opinion 99-01 | To the extent the proposed entity that screens and refers callers to lawyers serves as a for-profit referral service, the arrangement violates Rule 7.2(c). |
| Opinion 00-16 | If a firm’s referral of clients to an attorney depends on the attorney referring debt management clients back to the firm, the relationship violates Rule 7.2(c). |
| Opinion 01-03 | Lawyers may not pay an Internet service any portion of fees from clients obtained through it (Rule 5.4(a)). Reasonable payments based solely on the number of hits, not on whether a user becomes a client, are advertising charges permitted under Rule 7.2(c). |
| Opinion 01-07 | Rule 7.2(c) does not prohibit an attorney’s referrals to a clinic so long as they are not a quid pro quo reward for referrals received from it. |
| Opinion 03-09 | Rule 7.2(c) did not apply where a lay agency shared out of its own fee income, rather than a lawyer sharing as a means of attracting business. |
| Opinion 05-20 | Under the former Rule 1.5(e)(1), without a written agreement for joint responsibility the fee should be split in proportion to services. Under the new rule, the lawyers must tell the client the proportions, and the client must agree in writing to the joint representation, the fee split and its proportion. |
| Opinion 06-13 | An attorney may receive referrals from an association that is neither a legal service plan nor a lawyer referral service, provided the attorney gives the association nothing of value in exchange (Rule 7.2(c)). |
| Opinion 11-05 | Selling vouchers for discounted legal services on “daily deal” websites does not violate Rule 5.4(a); the website’s share is a reasonable cost of advertisements under Rule 7.2(c)(1). |
| Opinion 12-06 | Rule 7.2(c) did not apply to the arrangement asked about, because no legal services were contemplated. |
| Opinion 13-03 | Title insurance premiums and related charges are not legal fees and are not subject to Rule 5.4(a). A law firm renting from a real estate agency on commercially reasonable, fair-market terms is not giving anything of value under Rule 7.2(c). |
| Opinion 13-05 | The question was whether a group advertising scheme is a reasonable advertising cost under Rule 7.2(c)(1), which is allowed, or a for-profit lawyer referral service, which is not. A for-profit company cannot satisfy the (c)(2) exception. |
| Opinion 13-09 | A lawyer may not pay for “Preferred Closing Attorney” status with an agency. That status is an endorsement and privileged access to a referral source, not advertising (Rule 7.2(c), (c)(1)). |
| Opinion 16-06 | The arrangement with the service violates Rule 5.4(a). A lawyer using it cannot claim the advertising-cost exception of Rule 7.2(c)(1), and the service is not a not-for-profit referral service under (c)(2). |
| Opinion 18-02 | Rule 7.2(c) addresses payments made by a lawyer and does not squarely address a lawyer receiving something of value. |
| Opinion 21-01 | A lawyer may pay the fee to join a company’s network of legal service providers and be identified as a possible provider to customers of the banks the company serves (Rule 7.2(c)(1)). |
| Opinion 25-02 | A South Carolina lawyer’s co-representation with an alternative business structure, proposed under Rule 1.5(e) on a joint-responsibility basis, violates Rule 5.4. The paid referral model is not a permissible option for a South Carolina lawyer (Rule 7.2(c)). The opinion does not address whether the fee splitting proposed violates S.C. Code § 40-5-360. |
What our research did not find
- The June 20, 2005 order adopting the Ethics 2000 revision (effective October 1, 2005) is not held, so the dates most of the current rule words took effect are not established. Rules 1.5(e)(1), 1.5(e)(2) and 7.2(c) each have two undated versions in our research; this page uses the current words on sccourts.org. Authorities from before October 1, 2005 construed the earlier wording, and their holdings are stated as theirs.
- The South Carolina Bar’s ethics advisory opinions carry no issue date in our research. Opinion 97-02 cites the then Rule 5.4(a)(3), today’s 5.4(a)(4).
- S.C. Code § 16-17-10 (barratry) is carried in our research with no effective date, so this page does not date it, and no authority in our research applies it. S.C. Code §§ 40-5-310 and 40-5-350 (soliciting legal business) and the barratry sections §§ 16-17-20 to -50 are held in our research but were not copied into the research this page is drawn from. This page does not say what they provide, and does not say South Carolina has no statute on solicitation or payment for referrals.
- No South Carolina statute regulating the division of a fee between lawyers was found; the fee-division law is Rule 1.5(e) (searched October 18, 2026).
- No South Carolina decision under Rule 7.2(c) was found. The held decisions on paying for referrals decide under Rule 5.4(a), Rule 7.3 or S.C. Code § 40-5-350 (searched October 18, 2026).
- No South Carolina decision deciding choice of law under Rule 8.5(b) for fee division, referral payments or solicitation was found, and no statute setting choice of law for lawyer conduct (searched October 18, 2026).
- Found but not yet read: Motley Rice v. Baldwin & Baldwin (D.S.C. 2007), on fee sharing between firms; In re Berger, Matter of Reitzel and Matter of Schiller, on Rule 8.5(b); and South Carolina Bar ethics advisory opinions 96-20, 95-31, 94-26, 92-06, 90-16 and 00-10. None is relied on here.
- Later treatment of every South Carolina 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 South Carolina?
Yes, under Rule 1.5(e) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. 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. Ethics Advisory Opinion 98-32A says Rule 1.5(e) generally applies when one lawyer refers a case to another.
Is there a cap on referral fees in South Carolina?
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.
Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in South Carolina?
Yes. Rule 1.5(e)(2) requires that the client agree to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and that the agreement be confirmed in writing. In Matter of Jordan (2017), the Supreme Court of South Carolina found a violation of Rule 1.5(e)(2) where a lawyer entered fee-sharing arrangements in seven cases without the clients’ written confirmation of their agreement to the division.
Can a South Carolina lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?
Rule 1.5(e) governs a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Rule 8.5(b) says which jurisdiction’s rules apply when South Carolina exercises its disciplinary authority. For a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits apply, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise. For other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred apply or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction. We hold no South Carolina decision deciding choice of law for fee division.
Sources
- South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR (Rules 1.5, 5.4, 7.2, 8.5), on the South Carolina Judicial Branch’s rule pages, fetched October 18, 2026: Rule 1.5, Rule 5.4, Rule 7.2, Rule 8.5
- S.C. Code § 40-5-360, fetched October 18, 2026: scstatehouse.gov, Title 40, Chapter 5
- S.C. Code § 16-17-10, fetched October 18, 2026: scstatehouse.gov, Title 16, Chapter 17
- Cases and ethics advisory 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.