The Florida Bar

Ethics Opinion

Opinion 78-14

Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney may engage in the practice of law and real estate from the same office.

DR 2-102(E), DR 2-102
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed. 2d 810

Vice chairman Mead stated that opinion of the committee:
The issue presented is whether an attorney can engage in the practice of law
and real estate from the same office. The inquiring lawyer requests a response
specifically in light of “the advertising edicts permitted by recent changes relative
to advertisement.”
It has long been the Committee’s position that the two professions must be conducted
from offices that are functionally and geographically separate. This conclusion was based on DR
2-102(E), which prohibited the dual practice presented here, and our prior opinion 73-18 [since
withdrawn]. However, we now recognize the deletion of the old DR 2-102(E) from the new
Disciplinary Rule 2-102 as promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court in its decision of July 26,
1979, amending the Code of Professional Responsibility of The Florida Bar.
In view of the above revision of DR 2-102, the proposed conduct appears to be no longer
prohibited. We caution the attorney, however, that the “feeder” aspect of this association may
lead to direct solicitation not protected by the Bates decision or the recent changes in the Code
related to advertising.