Sharing fees with a nonlawyer has resulted in discipline ranging from an admonition to a term of suspension, depending on mitigating or aggravating factors present, such as the attorney's commission of other ethics violations or an ethics history. See, e.g., In the Matter of Paul R. Melletz, DRB 12-224 (November 16, 2012) (admonition for attorney who hired a paralegal for immigration matters as an independent contractor and, for a few years, evenly divided the flat fee charged to immigration clients); In re Fusco, 228 N.J. 159 (2017) (reprimand for attorney who shared his legal fee with a consultant, in addition to violations of RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), and RPC 1.4(b) (failure to keep client informed as to status of matter), and RPC 1.5(b) (failure to communicate in writing the basis or rate of the fee); attorney had significant mitigation); In re Burger, 201 N.J. 120 (2010) (reprimand for attorney who paid a paralegal employee fifty percent of the legal fees generated by immigration cases the paralegal had referred to the attorney; we determined that the employee's earnings, both from the fee shares and her weekly salary, were not excessive for the position of a paralegal/secretary); In re Agrapidis, 188 N.J. 248 (2006) (reprimand imposed where, over a four-year period, the attorney shared fees with nonlawyer employees on twelve occasions by paying them a percentage of legal fees received from clients whom the employees had referred; the attorney was not aware of the prohibition against fee-sharing and viewed the payments as "bonuses");

Typically, RPC 7.3(d) violations involve either a fee-sharing arrangement between a lawyer and his or her nonlawyer employee or a lawyer's use of a paid runner, and have resulted in discipline ranging between a reprimand and a term of suspension. See, e.g., In re Burger, 201 N.J. 120 (2010) (reprimand; attorney paid a paralegal employee fifty percent of the legal fees generated by immigration cases the paralegal referred to the respondent); In re Agrapidis, 188 N.J. 248 (2006) (reprimand; attorney paid to his nonlawyer employees twelve referral fees, totaling $20,000, based upon a percentage of the total fee received by the firm during a four-year period; fee shares were paid through payroll, taxes were deducted, payments were kept in the ordinary course of business, and IRS 1099 forms were issued to the recipients; the attorney did not know that the payment of fee shares, which he considered to be bonuses, was improper and discontinued the practice prior to the OAE's investigation, when he "read about a somewhat similar practice in a legal periodical and recognized that sharing fees with his office staff was questionable"); In re Gottesman, 126 N.J. 376 (1991) (reprimand; employee referred to his attorney employer personal injury and workers' compensation cases and rend

-modification clients, violations of RPC 5.4(d)(3) (prohibiting nonlawyers from exercising control over the professional judgment of the lawyer) and RPC 5.4(a), respectively; we gave great weight to the mitigating circumstances: the attorney was newly admitted; the improper involvement was short-lived (four months); and the attorney immediately terminated the relationship when he realized it was inappropriate and took steps to protect the entities' clients from harm, by working without compensation and by contributing his own funds to pay former staff to complete open files; and he readily admitted his misconduct); In the Matter of Geno Saleh Gani, DRB 04-372 (January 31, 2005) (admonition for attorney who contracted with a Texas organization to develop a New Jersey practice to prepare living trusts, made misleading communications about his services, engaged in other advertising violations, shared legal fees with non-attorneys, and assisted others in the unauthorized practice of law); In re Burger, 201 N.J. 120 (2010) (reprimand for attorney who paid a paralegal employee fifty percent of the legal fees generated by immigration cases the paralegal had referred to the attorney; we determined that the employee's earnings, both from the fee shares and her weekly salary, were not excessive for the position of a paralegal/secretary); In re Aqrapidis, 188 N.J. 248 (2006) (reprimand imposed where, over a four-year period, the attorney shared fees with nonlawyer employees on twelve occasions by paying them a percentage of legal fees received from clients whom the employees had referred; the attorney was not aware of the prohibition against fee-sharing and viewed the payments as "bonuses"); In re Gottesman, 126 N.J. 376 (1991) (attorney reprimanded for compensating his paralegal/investigator by paying him fifty percent of his legal fees; the attorney also assisted the employee in the unauthorized practice of law; although the attorney believed the fee share arrangement was permissible because his former fi

Further, he explained that he did not ask for guidance from other attorneys as to where to find the bail receipt information, for fear of competition, believing that those attorneys would then adopt his idea and, thus, obtain the same clients respondent was seeking. The OAE recommends a reprimand, citing In re Burger, 201 N.J. 120 (2010). There, an attorney who had been practicing law for forty-seven years, without incident, employed a paralegal who performed office tasks as well as translation services.

)(3) (prohibiting a nonlawyer from exercising control over the professional judgment of the lawyer) by allowing the nonlawyers to administer "law firm finances" through the attorney's business account; mitigation included the attorney's inexperience at the time of the misconduct (he had been admitted to the bar only months earlier), his short-term involvement with the entity, the immediate termination of the relationship once he realized its impropriety, and his protection of the entity's clients from harm by working without compensation and by contributing his own funds to pay former staff to complete open files); In the Matter of Geno Saleh Gani, DRB 04-372 (January 31, 2005) (admonition for attorney who contracted with a Texas organization to develop a New Jersey practice to prepare living trusts, made misleading communications about his services, engaged in other advertising violations, shared legal fees with non-attorneys, and assisted others in the unauthorized practice of law); In re Burger, 201 N.J. 120 (2010) (reprimand for attorney who paid a paralegal employee fifty percent of the legal fees generated by immigration cases that the paralegal referred to the attorney; we determined that the employee's earnings, both from the fee shares and her weekly salary, were not excessive for the position of a paralegal/secretary); In re Aqrapidis, 188 N.J. 248 (2006) (reprimand imposed where, over a four-year period, attorney shared fees with nonlawyer employees on twelve occasions by paying them a percentage of legal fees received from clients whom the employees had referred to the attorney; Agrapidis was not aware of the prohibition against fee-sharing and viewed the payments as "bonuses"); In re Gottesman, 126 N.J. 376 (1991) (attorney reprimanded for compensating his paralegal/investigator by paying him fifty percent of his legal fees; the attorney also assisted the employee in the unauthorized practice of law; although Gottesman believed the fee share arrangement was permissible because his fo

See, e.g., In re Burger, 201 N.J. 120 (2010) (attorney reprimanded for paying a paralegal employee fifty percent of the legal fees generated by immigration cases the paralegal referred to the respondent); In re Agrapidis, 188 N.J. 248 (2006) (reprimand where attorney paid twelve referral fees based upon a percentage of the total fee received by the firm to his nonlawyer employees, totaling $20,000, during a four-year period; fee shares were paid through payroll, taxes were deducted, payments were kept in the ordinary course of business, and IRS 1099 forms were issued to the recipients; attorney did not know that the payment of fee shares, which he considered to be bonuses, was improper and discontinued the practice prior to the OAE's investigation, when he "read about a somewhat similar practice in a legal periodical and recognized that sharing fees with his office staff was questionable"); In re Gottesman, 126 N.J. 376 (1991) (reprimand where employee referred personal injury and workers' compensation cases and rendered certa