Contact Us Today

Short answer. Wisconsin lets lawyers who are not in the same firm divide a fee only if the total fee is reasonable and one of three alternatives is met (SCR 20:1.5(e)). The division is based on the services performed by each lawyer, and the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved and is informed if the fee will increase as a result of their involvement; or the lawyers formerly practiced together and the payment to one lawyer is pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement between them; or, pursuant to the referral of a matter between the lawyers, each lawyer assumes the same ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were partners in the same firm, the client is informed of the terms of the referral arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive and whether the overall fee will increase, and the client consents in a writing signed by the client. The rule states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share.

Sources read October 10, 2026; checked against LegalFlare’s research October 27, 2026. Rules text is as printed in Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules chapter 20 (parts a and b) on wicourts.gov, fetched October 10, 2026. Statutes are from the 2023-24 Wisconsin Statutes on docs.legis.wisconsin.gov, fetched October 10, 2026. This page is general information, not legal advice. See the disclaimer.

Wisconsin’s referral fee rules at a glance

Question Wisconsin’s answer Source
Governing rule SCR 20:1.5(e), Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules chapter 20 SCR ch. 20 part a, SCR 20:1.5(e), PDF p. 23
Written client consent Required only for a referral division: the client consents in a writing signed by the client; for a division based on services, the rule’s words ask for no writing SCR 20:1.5(e)(3); SCR 20:1.5(e)(1)
Notice to the client Division based on services: the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved and is informed if the fee will increase. Referral division: the client is informed of the terms of the referral arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive and whether the overall fee will increase SCR 20:1.5(e)(1); SCR 20:1.5(e)(3)
Proportion to services or joint responsibility One of three: the division is based on the services performed by each lawyer (not necessarily in proportion to them); a payment between former colleagues under a separation or retirement agreement; or, on a referral, each lawyer assumes the same ethical responsibility as if partners in the same firm SCR 20:1.5(e)(1)–(3); EM-17-03
Reasonable total fee Required SCR 20:1.5(e)
Cap on the secondary lawyer’s share None stated in SCR 20:1.5(e) SCR 20:1.5(e)
Statutes Our search of Wis. Stat. ch. 757 found no statute that regulates dividing a fee between lawyers. § 757.45 makes it unlawful to divide a fee for placing a claim with an attorney, excepting attorneys “associated in the conduct of legal matters” without setting conditions; § 757.295 addresses solicitation Wis. Stat. §§ 757.45, 757.295

What SCR 20:1.5(e) says

SCR 20:1.5(e) governs the division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm. Its words, in force since July 1, 2007 (SCR ch. 20 part a, SCR 20:1.5(e), PDF p. 23):

(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the total fee is reasonable and:

(1) the division is based on the services performed by each lawyer, and the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved and is informed if the fee will increase as a result of their involvement; or

(2) the lawyers formerly practiced together and the payment to one lawyer is pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement between them; or

(3) pursuant to the referral of a matter between the lawyers, each lawyer assumes the same ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were partners in the same firm, the client is informed of the terms of the referral arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive and whether the overall fee will increase, and the client consents in a writing signed by the client.

The three alternatives, (1), (2) and (3), are each joined by “or”. Earlier wording of SCR 20:1.5(e) applied before July 1, 2007. It numbered its parts differently: its “(e)(1)” was a proportion-or-joint-responsibility clause, and its “(e)(2)” a disclosure clause. The date the earlier wording took effect is not established in our sources.

What the client must agree to in writing

A writing is required only for a referral division. Under SCR 20:1.5(e)(3), when the division is pursuant to the referral of a matter between the lawyers, the client consents in a writing signed by the client. A division based on the services performed by each lawyer (SCR 20:1.5(e)(1)) needs only that the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved and is informed if the fee will increase as a result of their involvement; the rule’s words ask for no writing there.

Unlike Model Rule 1.5(e), as the ABA Comment Wisconsin prints describes it (quoted in EF-10-02: the client’s agreement “must be confirmed in writing”), Wisconsin requires a signed writing for a referral division and no writing for a division based on services.

In Formal Opinion EF-10-02 (2010), the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Standing Committee on Professional Ethics advised that when a referral fee is paid, the referring lawyer must obtain the client’s signed written consent to the terms of the referral.

What must be disclosed to the client

  • A division based on services. The client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved, and is informed if the fee will increase as a result of their involvement (SCR 20:1.5(e)(1)).
  • A referral division. The client is informed of the terms of the referral arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive and whether the overall fee will increase (SCR 20:1.5(e)(3)).
  • Former colleagues. A payment between lawyers who formerly practiced together under a separation or retirement agreement (SCR 20:1.5(e)(2)) carries no client-disclosure term in the rule’s words.

Proportionality or joint responsibility

The total fee must be reasonable for every division (SCR 20:1.5(e)). Then one of three: the division is based on the services performed by each lawyer (SCR 20:1.5(e)(1)); the lawyers formerly practiced together and the payment is under a separation or retirement agreement between them (SCR 20:1.5(e)(2)); or, on a referral, each lawyer assumes the same ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were partners in the same firm (SCR 20:1.5(e)(3)).

Based on services, not in proportion to them. Wisconsin’s (e)(1) says “based on” where the Model Rule says “in proportion to”. In Memorandum Opinion EM-17-03 (2017), the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Standing Committee on Professional Ethics advised that under SCR 20:1.5(e)(1) a division of fees need not be in proportion to the work each lawyer does, so two firms may divide a one-third contingent fee 50/50, provided each client is told of and does not object to all the lawyers’ participation and is told if the fee will increase.

Responsibility on a referral. EF-10-02 (2010) advised that (e)(3)’s requirement that each lawyer assume the same ethical responsibility as if partners in the same firm does not impose a different standard than the former “joint responsibility”. When a referral fee is paid, the referring lawyer must refer only to competent counsel, obtain the client’s signed written consent to the terms of the referral, monitor the matter and remain available to the client, and the receiving lawyer must cooperate.

Lawyers who were in the same firm. Under the wording before July 1, 2007, the Court of Appeals held that SCR 20:1.5(e) does not reach a division within a dissolving firm or with a departing associate on matters begun while the lawyers were in the same firm (Gull v. Van Epps, 1994; Piaskoski & Associates v. Ricciardi, 2004). Whether that “same firm” reasoning survives today’s SCR 20:1.5(e)(2), which speaks to former colleagues’ separation or retirement agreements, is not settled by any authority we hold.

Referring a case out of Wisconsin, or into it

Wisconsin’s choice-of-law rule, SCR 20:8.5(b), sets the rules applied “in the exercise of the disciplinary authority of this state” (SCR ch. 20 part b, SCR 20:8.5(b), PDF p. 62):

(b) Choice of law. In the exercise of the disciplinary authority of this state, 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,

(i) if the lawyer is admitted to the bar of only this state, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of this state.

(ii) if the lawyer is admitted to the bars of this state and another jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the admitting jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices, except that if particular conduct clearly has its predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to the bar, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to that conduct.

(iii) if the lawyer is admitted to the bar in another jurisdiction and is providing legal services in this state as allowed under these rules, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of this state.

Paragraph (b)(1) is in force since July 1, 2007, and applies the rules of the jurisdiction where the tribunal sits, as the Model Rule does. Our sources do not establish when the opening words of 8.5(b) or paragraph (b)(2) took effect. The Model Rule’s (b)(2), as the ABA Comment Wisconsin prints describes it, applies the rules of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred, or of the jurisdiction of its predominant effect; Wisconsin’s (b)(2) instead turns on where the lawyer is admitted, and Wisconsin’s own Comment says SCR 20:8.5 differs from the Model Rule. Wisconsin’s reasonable-belief safe harbor is a separate paragraph, 8.5(c), not quoted here.

A Michigan opinion that describes Wisconsin’s rule. State Bar of Michigan ethics opinion RI-382 (2021) tells Michigan lawyers they may divide fees with out-of-state lawyers if the division complies with the ethical rules of both jurisdictions. Its note 16 describes Wisconsin Rule 20:1.5 as mandating the client’s signed written consent to the terms of the referral arrangement and, for a referral, that each lawyer assume the same ethical responsibility as if partners in the same firm. It is a Michigan opinion, not Wisconsin authority.

No authority we hold applies SCR 20:8.5(b) to fee division, referral payments or solicitation, and none decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral (searched October 10, 2026).

Paying for referrals, and nonlawyers

  • Payment for referrals. “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may” (SCR 20:7.2(b)): pay the reasonable cost of advertisements or communications permitted by the rule ((b)(1)); pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, a qualified lawyer referral service being one approved by an appropriate regulatory authority ((b)(2)); pay for a law practice in accordance with SCR 20:1.17 ((b)(3)); and refer clients to another lawyer or nonlawyer professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under the rules that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer, if the reciprocal referral arrangement is not exclusive, the client gives informed consent, there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship, and information relating to representation of a client is protected as SCR 20:1.6 requires ((b)(4)(i)–(iv)).
  • Nonlawyers. “A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer” (SCR 20:5.4(a)), except: 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 ((a)(1)); a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared lawyer may, under SCR 20:1.17, pay the agreed-upon purchase price to that lawyer’s estate or other representative ((a)(2)); 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 ((a)(3)); and a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter ((a)(4)). The Wisconsin Supreme Court has disciplined lawyers for agreeing to divide fees with nonlawyers (Van Cura, 1993; Eisenberg, 2013). In Weigel (2012), applying the rule in force before July 1, 2007, it held that SCR 20:5.4(a)(3), as drafted, does not preclude a paralegal’s bonus computed on gross recoveries in the personal injury cases she worked on; two justices dissented on that count and would have found a violation.
  • Statutes. It is unlawful for any person to divide with or receive from an attorney any portion of a fee as an inducement for placing, or in consideration of having placed, a claim in the attorney’s hands; the section does not apply to an agreement between attorneys “when associated in the conduct of legal matters” to divide the compensation between themselves (Wis. Stat. § 757.45). Except as provided under SCR 20:7.1 to 20:7.5, no person may solicit legal matters or a retainer, no person may communicate with an attorney to aid the attorney’s solicitation, and no attorney may employ a person to solicit legal matters (Wis. Stat. § 757.295(1)–(3)). Each statute carries a fine or imprisonment (§ 757.45; § 757.295(4)). In Abbott v. Marker (2006), the Court of Appeals applied both to hold a nonlawyer’s 25% referral-fee agreement illegal.

Wis. Stat. § 757.45 reads (docs.legis.wisconsin.gov):

757.45 Sharing of compensation by attorneys prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to divide with or receive from, or to agree to divide with or receive from, any attorney or group of attorneys, whether practicing in this state or elsewhere, either before or after action brought, any portion of any fee or compensation, charged or received by such attorney or any valuable consideration or reward, as an inducement for placing or in consideration of having placed, in the hands of such attorney, or in the hands of another person, a claim or demand of any kind for the purpose of collecting such claim, or bringing an action thereon, or of representing claimant in the pursuit of any civil remedy for the recovery thereof; but this section does not apply to an agreement between attorneys and counselors at law when associated in the conduct of legal matters to divide between themselves the compensation to be received. Any person violating this section shall be fined not to exceed $500 or imprisoned not to exceed 6 months.

On its words, § 757.45’s exception for attorneys “associated in the conduct of legal matters” is narrower than a referral division under SCR 20:1.5(e)(3). No authority we hold reads the two together, and this page does not say whether a referral division under SCR 20:1.5(e)(3) is lawful under § 757.45.

Wisconsin 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 marked as applying earlier wording construed the rules before July 1, 2007; their numbered parts follow the earlier numbering, and their holdings are theirs, not readings of today’s SCR 20:1.5(e)(1) or (e)(2). This list is not every Wisconsin decision on the topic.

Case Citation Year What it held
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman 158 Wis. 2d 1 1990 Wisconsin Supreme Court, on stipulated allegations: the referee concluded that an attorney’s giving money or other compensation to people, including clients, for recommending his employment or as a reward for referring new clients violated SCR 20:7.2 and the former Code rule SCR 20.09, and the Court, deciding only the discipline, suspended his license for one year. The conduct (1986-1989) and the decision predate the 2007 wording of 7.2(b); the Court applied the earlier wording.
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against VanCura 178 Wis. 2d 612 1993 Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the referee’s conclusion that a 1987 agreement under which a law firm would pay a nonlawyer consulting firm, which financed its product liability litigation, one-half of any fees it collected from that litigation violated former SCR 20.19 and SCR 20:5.4(a), which prohibit dividing legal fees with a nonlawyer; it suspended the attorney for two years. It applied the 5.4(a) in force in 1993 and the former Code rule.
Gull v. Van Epps 185 Wis. 2d 609 1994 Wisconsin Court of Appeals, construing the pre-2007 wording of SCR 20:1.5(e), held that the rule does not apply to dividing fees while a dissolving law partnership’s affairs are concluded, because until that process is completed the lawyers are in the same firm.
Gerald R. Turner & Associates, S.C. v. Moriarty 25 F.3d 1356 1994 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a fee suit between co-counsel decided under Wisconsin law, held that the lawyer who paid his co-counsel one-third had not shown a bona fide dispute over their 1985 agreement to split the fee evenly, because a fair reading of the ethics rules supports an even division; it read Wisconsin’s SCR 20:1.5(e)(1), as revised effective January 1, 1988, as providing that fees be split based either on the proportion of work done or on a written agreement. It construed that earlier wording, not today’s (e)(1), and reversed summary judgment.
Piaskoski & Associates v. Ricciardi 2004 WI App 152 2004 Wisconsin Court of Appeals, construing the pre-2007 wording, held that SCR 20:1.5(e) does not apply to an agreement between a firm and its departing associate to divide a client’s fee equally, because that was not a division “between lawyers who are not in the same firm” but between lawyers who were in the same firm when the representation began; it extended Gull v. Van Epps.
Abbott v. Marker 2006 WI App 174 2006 Wisconsin Court of Appeals, on a nonlawyer’s suit for 25% of an attorney’s fee on clients he referred: the referral agreement was illegal and unenforceable in contract and quasi-contract, because the nonlawyer was soliciting clients for the attorney in violation of Wis. Stat. § 757.295, and paying him 25% of the attorney’s fee would violate § 757.45, which makes it illegal for an attorney to split legal fees with non-attorneys; the agreement was also against public policy.
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper 2007 WI 37 2007 Wisconsin Supreme Court, on default, agreed with the referee’s findings and conclusions that the attorney violated SCR 20:1.5(e) by engaging in improper fee splitting, among the counts on which it suspended him for three years; the opinion does not describe the division. It was issued before the current 1.5(e) wording took effect on July 1, 2007, for conduct before 2005, although its footnote quotes the 2007 wording.
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown 2010 WI 104 2010 Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the referee’s conclusion, on a no-contest plea, that where a firm’s markups on an out-of-firm contract lawyer’s hourly work were not proportionate to his services, and the firm failed to disclose the compensation arrangement and failed to obtain the client’s written agreement to the markup or the fee arrangement, the attorney violated former SCR 20:1.5(e); it publicly reprimanded her. It construed the pre-July-2007 wording (conduct 1998-1999).
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Weigel 2012 WI 71 2012 Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed a charge that a firm’s bonuses to a paralegal, computed on gross recoveries in the personal injury cases she worked on, shared legal fees with a nonlawyer: it saw no material ethical distinction between profit-sharing and revenue-sharing for the bonus, found no indication the paralegal would interfere with the lawyer’s independent judgment, and held that SCR 20:5.4(a)(3), as drafted, does not preclude that bonus structure. It applied the rule in force before July 1, 2007, the conduct having arisen before that date. Two justices dissented on this count and would have found a violation.
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg 2013 WI 37 2013 Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the referee’s conclusion that an attorney violated SCR 20:5.4(a) by agreeing to serve as a conduit to share fees he did not earn with a nonlawyer and by agreeing, in 2007, to split worker’s compensation fees 50/50 with an unlicensed nonlawyer case manager; it suspended him for two years.
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Creedy 2014 WI 114 2014 Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the referee’s conclusion that the Office of Lawyer Regulation had not proved a violation of SCR 20:5.4(a) where a lawyer divided fees with a nonlawyer Social Security representative, because federal law permits nonlawyers to represent individuals in Social Security disability claims and to receive fees, which the Social Security Administration designates as “fees,” not necessarily “legal fees.”

State Bar of Wisconsin ethics opinions

These opinions are advisory. As with the cases, later treatment of these opinions has not been searched. Opinions marked as construing earlier wording applied the rules before July 1, 2007; they are not readings of today’s SCR 20:1.5(e)(1) or (e)(2). Where our research stores no issue date, the year is left blank.

Opinion Year What it said
E-82-8 Under the former Code and Wis. Stat. § 757.295 as it read in 1979-80: a lawyer’s letter to seminar attendees who had asked the insurer, not the lawyer, for information would be direct solicitation prohibited by § 757.295. The statute now opens “Except as provided under SCR 20:7.1 to 20:7.5”, and whether the analysis survives that wording is not settled by an authority we hold.
E-83-16 Under the former Code and Wis. Stat. § 757.295 as it read in 1981-82: follow-up telephone calls after a mailed advertisement would be improper as contrary to § 757.295. The statute now opens “Except as provided under SCR 20:7.1 to 20:7.5”, and whether the analysis survives that wording is not settled by an authority we hold.
E-87-7 Construing SCR 20:7.2(b) as in force from January 1, 1988 (before the 2007 wording): a lawyer may not accept referrals from a for-profit lawyer referral service to which the lawyer pays any fee or gives anything of value for recommending the lawyer’s services, but if the lawyer paid no consideration for the potential or actual receipt of referral clients, participation appears permissible. It also cited Wis. Stat. § 757.295 on solicitation.
E-88-8 Construing the earlier wording: lawyers registered with a bar association’s lawyer referral service may remit to it an agreed percentage of fees collected, but because such fee-sharing is permissible only when the service is operated by a bar association and nonprofit, the remittance should be reasonably related to the cost of operating the service (SCR 20:7.2(b); see also 5.4(a)). Fees charged referral clients should not be inflated to cover it unless the clients are informed fully before the representation begins and consent (citing 1.5(c) and (e)).
E-94-2 Construing the earlier wording of SCR 20:1.5(e): where a receiving lawyer raises the hourly fee on referred cases and pays the increase to the referring lawyer, both lawyers must have a written agreement with the client by which each assumes joint responsibility, the client must consent to each lawyer’s participation, and the increased fee must be disclosed to the client under SCR 20:1.5(e)(2). That “(e)(2)” is the earlier wording’s disclosure clause, not today’s 1.5(e)(2).
E-00-01 Withdrawn by EF-10-02 (2010). Construing the earlier wording’s (e)(1) (“joint responsibility for the representation”), not today’s: a lawyer who refers a matter and shares the fee other than in proportion to services need not handle it day to day, but must maintain contact with the progress of the matter, refer only to a lawyer competent to handle it, and assume financial responsibility for the matter.
E-00-04 2001 Construing the earlier wording: SCR 20:7.2(b) prohibits giving anything of value for recommending the lawyer’s own services, and the Rules do not per se prohibit a lawyer from receiving something of value for recommending a nonlawyer’s services to a client; but a referral fee paid to a lawyer that, in substance, increases the client’s costs is an impermissible sharing of legal fees with a nonlawyer under SCR 20:5.4(a). A lawyer who receives such a benefit must fully disclose it to the client.
EF-10-02 2010 Current SCR 20:1.5(e)(3)’s requirement that each lawyer assume the same ethical responsibility as if partners in the same firm does not impose a different standard than the former “joint responsibility”. When a referral fee is paid, the referring lawyer must refer only to competent counsel, obtain the client’s signed written consent to the terms of the referral, monitor the matter and remain available to the client, and the receiving lawyer must cooperate. It withdrew E-00-01.
EM-17-03 2017 Under SCR 20:1.5(e)(1), which says “based on” where the Model Rule says “in proportion to”, a division of fees need not be in proportion to the work each lawyer does, so two firms may divide a one-third contingent fee 50/50, provided each client is told of and does not object to all the lawyers’ participation and is told if the fee will increase.

What our research did not find

  • Wis. Stat. §§ 757.45 and 757.295 are taken from the Legislature’s current pages (docs.legis.wisconsin.gov) with no effective date stored. On its words, § 757.45’s exception for attorneys “associated in the conduct of legal matters” is narrower than a referral division under SCR 20:1.5(e)(3). No authority we hold reads the two together, and this page does not say whether a referral division under SCR 20:1.5(e)(3) is lawful under § 757.45.
  • Our search of Wisconsin Statutes chapter 757 (§§ 757.19–757.47, read October 10, 2026) found no statute that regulates dividing a fee between lawyers. § 757.45’s last clause excepts attorneys “associated in the conduct of legal matters” from its ban without setting conditions on the division.
  • SCR 20:7.3 (solicitation) and its authorities (Lesperance, Mandelman, Solomon, Knight, Ryan, Arellano; E-94-4, IE-16-01) are held in our research but not covered on this page. The words of 7.3 from 2007 to 2016 and before 2007 were not reviewed.
  • No authority we hold applies SCR 20:8.5(b) to fee division, referral payments or solicitation (court decisions, statutes and ethics opinions searched October 10, 2026). The order or orders that set 8.5(b)(2)(i)–(iii) and 8.5(c) are not held, and the words of 8.5(b)(2) in force from July 1, 2007 until that order were not reviewed, so this page gives no effective date for the opening words of 8.5(b) or for 8.5(b)(2).
  • The earlier wording of SCR 20:1.5(e) and 7.2(b) is held, but the date it took effect is not; the orders that set it are not held. The words of SCR 20:5.4(a) and 5.4(a)(1) carry no effective date in our research.
  • Mandelman (1990), VanCura (1993), Gull (1994), Turner (1994), Piaskoski (2004), Cooper (2007), Brown (2010) and Weigel (2012), and opinions E-87-7, E-88-8, E-94-2, E-00-01 and E-00-04, applied the wording before July 1, 2007; their holdings are stated as their own. Their numbered parts are the earlier numbering: E-94-2’s “(e)(2)” is the old disclosure clause, and E-00-01’s and Turner’s “(e)(1)” is the old proportion-or-joint-responsibility clause. None of them construes today’s SCR 20:1.5(e)(1) or (e)(2).
  • Whether the “same firm” reasoning of Gull and Piaskoski survives today’s SCR 20:1.5(e)(2), which speaks to former colleagues’ separation or retirement agreements, is an open question; this page does not answer it.
  • In Weigel (2012), the copy we hold omits the dissent of two justices on the SCR 20:5.4(a)(3) bonus count itself. Two justices would have found a violation on that count.
  • Wisconsin decisions were found but not read, among them Dumke (1999, a 20:1.5(e) violation), Weigel v. Grimmett (1992, a fee-sharing agreement), Royce v. Needle (7th Cir. 2020) and OLR v. Ritland (2024). The authorities on this page are not the only Wisconsin authority on the topic.
  • E-82-8, E-83-16, E-87-7, E-88-8, E-94-2 and E-00-01 carry no issue date in our research, so this page does not date them. E-00-01 was withdrawn by EF-10-02 (2010).
  • RI-382 is a Michigan opinion. Its note 16 describes Wisconsin’s rule, but it is not Wisconsin authority.
  • Opinions E-82-8 and E-83-16 applied § 757.295 as it read in 1979-82, before its “Except as provided under SCR 20:7.1 to 20:7.5” opening. Whether their analysis survives that wording is an open question.
  • Later treatment of every 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 Wisconsin?

SCR 20:1.5(e)(3) provides for a division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm pursuant to the referral of a matter between them. It may be made only if the total fee is reasonable, each lawyer assumes the same ethical responsibility for the representation as if the lawyers were partners in the same firm, the client is informed of the terms of the referral arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive and whether the overall fee will increase, and the client consents in a writing signed by the client. Wis. Stat. § 757.45 separately makes it unlawful to divide a fee as an inducement for, or in consideration of, placing a claim in an attorney’s hands, except an agreement between attorneys “when associated in the conduct of legal matters” to divide the compensation between themselves. No authority we hold reads that statute together with a referral division under SCR 20:1.5(e)(3).

Is there a cap on referral fees in Wisconsin?

SCR 20:1.5(e) states no percentage limit on either lawyer’s share. It requires that the total fee be reasonable. In Memorandum Opinion EM-17-03 (2017), the State Bar of Wisconsin’s ethics committee advised that under SCR 20:1.5(e)(1) a division of fees need not be in proportion to the work each lawyer does, so two firms may divide a one-third contingent fee 50/50, provided each client is told of and does not object to all the lawyers’ participation and is told if the fee will increase.

Does the client have to agree to a fee division in writing in Wisconsin?

Only for a referral division. Under SCR 20:1.5(e)(3), when the division is pursuant to the referral of a matter between the lawyers, the client must consent in a writing signed by the client. A division based on the services performed by each lawyer (SCR 20:1.5(e)(1)) needs only that the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved and is informed if the fee will increase as a result of their involvement; the rule’s words ask for no writing there.

Can a Wisconsin lawyer divide a fee with a lawyer from another state?

SCR 20:8.5(b) sets the rules applied when Wisconsin exercises its disciplinary authority. For conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, it applies the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise. For any other conduct, it turns on where the lawyer is admitted. A lawyer admitted only in Wisconsin is held to Wisconsin’s rules. A lawyer admitted in Wisconsin and another jurisdiction is held to the rules of the admitting jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices, except that particular conduct that clearly has its predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted is held to that jurisdiction’s rules. A lawyer admitted elsewhere who provides legal services in Wisconsin as the rules allow is held to Wisconsin’s rules. No authority we hold applies SCR 20:8.5(b) to fee division or decides which state’s rules govern a cross-border referral.

Sources

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules chapter 20, fetched October 10, 2026: part a (SCR 20:1.5) and part b (SCR 20:5.4, 20:7.2, 20:8.5)
  • Wisconsin Statutes, 2023-24, fetched October 10, 2026: § 757.45, § 757.295
  • 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.