FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may maintain a real estate broker’s license with a real estate firm and at the same time
maintain an active law practice specializing in real estate transactions.
EC 2-8, DR 2-102, DR 2-103, DR 5-101(A), EC 9-6, DR 9-101
66-16, 72-19, 74-54, 78-14, 79-3
The Florida Bar re: Amendment to The Florida Bar Code of Professional
Responsibility (Advertising), 380 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1980)
Mr. Corrigan stated the opinion of the committee:
The inquiring lawyer asks if he can maintain his real estate broker’s license
with a real estate firm in order to enhance his instructor’s position, teaching for an
accredited real estate salesman’s license school, and, at the same time, maintain
an active law practice specializing in real estate transactions.
The Florida Supreme Court has, in the case of The Florida Bar re: Amendment to The
Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility (Advertising), 380 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1980),
promulgated new disciplinary rules and ethical considerations governing advertising, which is
one form of solicitation. The Supreme Court, however, did not revise the disciplinary rules and
ethical considerations on other forms of solicitation. Since this inquiry does not deal directly
with permissible advertising, the answer to it must be found in the revised DR 2-102 and EC 2-8
as well as in DR 2-103 and DR 5-101(A). Reference is also made to past opinions of this
Committee numbered 66-16 [since withdrawn], 72-19 [since withdrawn], 74-54 [since
withdrawn], 78-14 and 79-3.
The Committee believes that the facts of this inquiry do not present an “impermissible
feeder” type operation. If the inquiring lawyer refrains from accepting any referrals from the real
estate firm, and if he can conduct himself so as not to violate DR 9-101 and EC 9-6, and thus
avoid any appearance of impropriety, the Committee believes he can continue his law practice
and his teaching while leaving his real estate license registered with the real estate firm.