Informed consent to the fact of a division. Lives in 1.5(d).OR
Oregon fee division
Oregon put the split in 1.5(d), not 1.5(e). Two lawyers may divide a fee if you give informed consent to the fact that there will be a division, and the total for all the lawyers is not clearly excessive. The rule does not require the split to match the hours, and it does not require joint responsibility.
Last checked Sep 4, 2026 · LawyerUnc editorial. Educational only, not legal advice.
- The rule
- Or. RPC 1.5(d)
- What you sign
- The client gives informed consent to the fact that there will be a division of fees. The total fee of the lawyers for all legal services they rendered the client is not clearly excessive. Put the shares in writing anyway.
- How the split is allowed
- No proportional-work or joint-responsibility requirement in 1.5(d). Consent to the fact of a division, plus a total that is not clearly excessive. 1.5(e) carves out payments to a former firm member under a separation or a sale of a practice.
- Any cap on the referring share
- No Florida-style 25% cap. 'Not clearly excessive' is the Oregon ceiling.
- Who is not in the fee
- A nonlawyer does not take a percentage of the recovery. Hosting, ads, and software get a flat or metered bill. That is ABA Model Rule 5.4 in substance, and every state on this desk follows it.
For the lawyer on the other end
Cite Oregon 1.5(d). 1.5(e) is the carve-out, not the division rule.
Informed consent is to the fact of a division, not necessarily to each percentage. Still write the percentages if you want the file to survive a later fight.