Legal MSO Regulation Tracker — Primary Sources

Primary-source index of professional rules, statutes, ethics opinions, and authorization programs relevant to legal MSO analysis.

Legal MSO Regulation Tracker

Statuses were source-checked August 28, 2026 and remain counsel-pending. This is a research index, not a compliance conclusion. ABA Model Rules are models; each jurisdiction's adopted rules, statutes, orders, and decisions control.

Dataset methodology: Each state and the District of Columbia has one jurisdiction record selected as a primary-source research entry. ABA model and federal FTC records are separate contextual authorities. Classifications describe the selected source, not the legality of an arrangement or the absence of additional authority. Cite the record’s official source title and URL, identify this dataset version and verification date, and review the current primary authority. Entries are source-checked and counsel-pending; they are not legal advice or compliance conclusions.

Version history: 2026-08-28.1 (2026-08-28) — Initial nationwide release: 50 states, the District of Columbia, the ABA Model Rules, and the federal FTC Franchise Rule.

Commercial interest disclosure: Relevant Management Services participates in the legal-MSO market. Entries are general research information, not legal advice, an endorsement, or a conclusion that any arrangement is lawful.

Jurisdiction records

ABA Model Rules (ABA) — ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: model_authority. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. ABA Model Rule 5.4 addresses professional independence, legal-fee sharing, nonlawyer partnerships, ownership, and third-party influence, subject to stated exceptions. Limitation: The ABA Model Rules are models and do not themselves control in a jurisdiction; adopted law and fact-specific counsel review are required.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — 16 CFR Part 436: Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising Classification: federal_regulation. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. 16 CFR Part 436 sets federal franchise disclosure requirements and prohibitions; whether it applies to a branded operating relationship depends on its facts and the regulation’s definitions. Limitation: This federal regulation is included as a potentially relevant source and does not determine that a particular MSO relationship is a franchise or otherwise subject to the rule.

Connecticut (CT) — Connecticut Practice Book 2025, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 states restrictions on sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships involving law practice, nonlawyer interests in for-profit law-practice entities, and third-party direction of professional judgment, subject to enumerated exceptions. Limitation: This entry reports the cited rule text only; its application to any MSO arrangement requires fact-specific counsel review.

Delaware (DE) — Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Delaware Supreme Court’s rules compilation, amended through November 18, 2025, includes Rule 5.4 governing professional independence and nonlawyer participation in law-practice economics and control. Limitation: This entry is limited to the cited rules compilation and does not determine how Rule 5.4 applies to a particular services agreement or ownership structure.

Maine (ME) — Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 states restrictions on sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, forming a partnership that practices law with a nonlawyer, nonlawyer interests or control in for-profit law-practice entities, and interference with professional judgment, with listed exceptions. Limitation: The Board’s page cautions that the rules control if its website conflicts with them; application to an MSO requires counsel review of the current rules and facts.

Maryland (MD) — Maryland Rule 19-305.4: Professional Independence of an Attorney (5.4) Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2021-10-01. Rule 19-305.4 states restrictions on sharing legal fees with non-attorneys, partnerships involving law practice, non-attorney ownership or control, and interference with professional judgment, subject to enumerated exceptions. The official compilation reports the latest amendment effective October 1, 2021 and currentness through June 1, 2026. Limitation: This entry describes the cited rule and currentness statement only; it does not resolve treatment of any particular MSO contract or payment method.

Massachusetts (MA) — Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:07, Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2016-08-01. Rule 5.4 states restrictions on sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships involving law practice, nonlawyer ownership or management in for-profit law-practice entities, and third-party direction of professional judgment, with enumerated exceptions. Limitation: The cited rule does not by itself determine whether a particular management-services structure or compensation formula complies.

New Hampshire (NH) — New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 states restrictions on nonlawyer fee sharing, partnerships involving law practice, nonlawyer ownership or control in for-profit law-practice entities, and interference with professional judgment, while listing exceptions including certain nonprofit fee sharing. Limitation: This entry is confined to the rule and its published comments; counsel must assess any MSO’s facts and other potentially applicable authority.

New Jersey (NJ) — New Jersey Rules of Court, Part I Appendix—Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 5.4 Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The New Jersey Courts’ official Rules of Court collection identifies the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Part I appendix, including RPC 5.4; the collection states that it includes amendments effective on or before June 1, 2026. Limitation: The official collection is cited as the conservative baseline; this entry does not determine the treatment of a specific MSO arrangement or establish that no additional authority applies.

New York (NY) — 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rules 5.4 and 5.8: Professional Independence and Contractual Relationships with Nonlegal Professionals Classification: specific_authority. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2009-04-01. Rule 5.4 addresses fee sharing, nonlawyer ownership and control, while Rule 5.8 permits specified systematic contractual relationships with listed nonlegal professionals subject to conditions including no ownership interest, fee sharing, or referral consideration. Part 1200 was promulgated as joint rules of the Appellate Divisions effective April 1, 2009 and has been amended thereafter. Limitation: Rule 5.8 is conditional and profession-specific; classification here does not determine whether any MSO or contemplated relationship satisfies its requirements.

Pennsylvania (PA) — 204 Pa. Code Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 states restrictions on sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships involving law practice, nonlawyer beneficial ownership or control, and interference with professional judgment, subject to enumerated exceptions. Limitation: The Pennsylvania Code page is the baseline rule source; its application to a particular MSO structure remains a fact-specific counsel question.

Rhode Island (RI) — Rhode Island Supreme Court Article V, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2023-10-13. The Supreme Court’s Article V rules compilation, updated October 13, 2023, contains Rule 5.4 governing professional independence and nonlawyer participation in law-practice fees, ownership, management, and control. Limitation: This entry reports the cited rule compilation only and does not determine how it applies to any particular MSO services or financial arrangement.

Vermont (VT) — Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Vermont Judiciary’s rules compilation contains Rule 5.4 addressing professional independence, fee sharing with nonlawyers, and nonlawyer ownership or control of law-practice entities. Limitation: This entry is a rule-text baseline and does not establish the treatment of a specific MSO arrangement or the absence of other relevant authority.

District of Columbia (DC) — District of Columbia Rule 5.4: Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: authorized_framework. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4(b) permits a lawyer to practice in an organization where a nonlawyer assisting in providing legal services holds a financial interest or managerial authority if the organization’s sole purpose is providing legal services and the rule’s written undertakings and lawyer-responsibility conditions are met. Rule 5.4(c) separately addresses direction or regulation of professional judgment. Limitation: This classification reflects the rule’s express conditional framework and is not a determination that any particular entity, investor, professional, or MSO arrangement qualifies.

Alabama (AL) — Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, practicing with nonlawyer owners or controllers, and protection of a lawyer’s independent judgment. Limitation: The rule text does not determine how any particular MSO arrangement should be characterized; counsel review remains necessary.

Arkansas (AR) — Current Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships involving the practice of law, third-party direction, and nonlawyer interests or control in for-profit practice entities. Limitation: The rule’s application to a specific services, financing, or ownership structure requires counsel review.

Florida (FL) — Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2022-08-01. Rule 4-5.4 addresses fee sharing, partnerships, third-party direction, nonlawyer ownership or control, and enumerated exceptions. The rule’s latest listed amendment became effective August 1, 2022. Limitation: The enumerated exceptions and entity provisions must be assessed against the facts and other applicable rules by counsel.

Georgia (GA) — Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: specific_authority. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 includes conditions under which a Georgia lawyer may divide fees with a law firm in another jurisdiction despite nonlawyer ownership or ABS status. Its comments state that these provisions do not allow creation of or participation in an ABS in Georgia. Limitation: Whether an entity and engagement meet every stated condition requires fact-specific counsel review.

Kentucky (KY) — SCR 3.130(5.4) — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2009-07-15. SCR 3.130(5.4) addresses fee sharing, partnerships with nonlawyers, third-party direction, and nonlawyer ownership, management, or control of for-profit practice entities. Limitation: The rule alone does not resolve treatment of any particular MSO contract or corporate structure; counsel review remains necessary.

Louisiana (LA) — Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2023-05-10. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees, partnerships with nonlawyers, third-party direction, and nonlawyer ownership or control, while cross-referencing a stated Rule 7.2 exception. The official compilation states that it includes amendments through May 10, 2023. Limitation: The cross-reference and any proposed business arrangement require review under the complete rules and relevant facts by counsel.

Mississippi (MS) — Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 1998-08-20. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees, partnerships with nonlawyers, third-party direction, and nonlawyer ownership or control of for-profit practice entities. The rule lists an amendment dated August 20, 1998. Limitation: Application to a particular MSO’s economics, governance, or services requires counsel review.

North Carolina (NC) — North Carolina Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2019-03-27. Rule 5.4 addresses fee sharing, partnerships, third-party direction, and nonlawyer ownership or control, with stated exceptions and comments. The page lists its latest Supreme Court-approved amendment as March 27, 2019. Limitation: The rule and comments do not decide the treatment of a particular MSO model without fact-specific counsel review.

South Carolina (SC) — South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 25-02 Classification: specific_authority. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Opinion 25-02 analyzes paid-referral and joint-representation models involving an Arizona ABS under Rules 1.5, 5.4, 5.5, 8.4, and 8.5, and addresses a South Carolina lawyer’s proposed ownership interest in the ABS. Limitation: The opinion is advisory, fact-specific, and expressly notes that the committee has no disciplinary authority; other arrangements require counsel review.

Tennessee (TN) — Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, RPC 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. RPC 5.4 appears within Supreme Court Rule 8 and governs professional independence, including fee sharing and practice relationships involving nonlawyers. Limitation: The official rule page, rather than pending reform discussion, is used as the conservative baseline; any specific structure requires counsel review.

Virginia (VA) — Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2025-07-15. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees, partnerships with nonlawyers, third-party direction, and nonlawyer ownership, management, or control of practice entities. The official compilation is identified as effective July 15, 2025. Limitation: The compilation and rule do not determine the treatment of a particular MSO arrangement without counsel’s factual and legal review.

West Virginia (WV) — West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2015-01-01. Rule 5.4 is part of the comprehensive amended West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct approved September 29, 2014 and effective January 1, 2015, addressing professional independence and nonlawyer-related practice restrictions. Limitation: The rule’s application to a particular MSO contract, ownership arrangement, or control right requires counsel review.

Illinois (IL) — Public Act 104-0801 — Attorney Act § 13, Protection of clients Classification: specific_authority. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2026-08-07. The Act defines management services organizations and alternative business structures and imposes specified restrictions and contract terms for covered Illinois attorneys and law firms. It applies prospectively to contracts entered on or after its effective date. Limitation: Coverage depends on statutory revenue, contingent-fee, contract-date, and other provisions; counsel should review the full Act together with Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4.

Indiana (IN) — Rule 5.4. Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2005-01-01. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships involving the practice of law, third-party direction of professional judgment, and nonlawyer interests or roles in for-profit legal entities. Limitation: The rule contains stated exceptions and must be assessed with other applicable Indiana authorities and facts by counsel.

Iowa (IA) — Iowa Court Rules Chapter 32 — Rule 32:5.4, Professional independence of a lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2024-05-31. The official Chapter 32 compilation includes Rule 32:5.4 governing professional independence of a lawyer, including nonlawyer fee sharing and organizational relationships. Limitation: The linked date identifies the official compilation; amendment history and application to a particular arrangement require counsel review.

Kansas (KS) — Kansas Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2007-07-01. Rule 5.4 addresses legal-fee sharing with nonlawyers, partnerships involving legal practice, direction of professional judgment, and nonlawyer ownership or management roles in legal-practice entities. Limitation: The history line reports the latest amendment shown in the opened source; stated exceptions and other Kansas rules require counsel review.

Michigan (MI) — Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Michigan Supreme Court’s official rules compilation includes Rule 5.4 addressing fee sharing with nonlawyers and safeguards for a lawyer’s professional independence. Limitation: No MSO-specific classification is made from this baseline rule; counsel should review current amendments, exceptions, and related Michigan authority.

Minnesota (MN) — Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships involving legal practice, third-party direction, and specified nonlawyer interests or roles in a legal-practice entity. Limitation: The rule’s exceptions and interaction with other Minnesota court rules or programs require counsel review.

Missouri (MO) — Supreme Court of Missouri Rule 4-5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Supreme Court of Missouri’s Legal Ethics Counsel rule index identifies Rule 4-5.4 as Professional Independence of a Lawyer and links the office’s opinions by rule number. Limitation: This official index is not a substitute for the controlling rule text or a fact-specific ethics analysis; counsel should confirm the current rule and related orders.

Nebraska (NE) — Nebraska Court Rule § 3-505.4 — Professional independence of a lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Section 3-505.4 addresses fee sharing with nonlawyers, partnerships involving legal practice, direction of professional judgment, and nonlawyer ownership or management roles. Limitation: The section includes exceptions and should be read with the remaining Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct by counsel.

North Dakota (ND) — North Dakota Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers and organizational or third-party arrangements affecting a lawyer’s professional independence. Limitation: No MSO-specific classification is made from this baseline rule; exceptions, amendments, and related North Dakota authority require counsel review.

Ohio (OH) — Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct — Prof.Cond.R. 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2026-01-01. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s official rules compilation, stated to be amended effective January 1, 2026, includes Prof.Cond.R. 5.4 governing professional independence and nonlawyer financial or organizational involvement. Limitation: The date is the compilation’s stated amendment-effective date and does not by itself indicate that Rule 5.4 changed then; counsel should review rule history and related authority.

South Dakota (SD) — Appendix to SDCL Chapter 16-18 — South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The official South Dakota Legislature source publishes the Rules of Professional Conduct as the appendix to SDCL chapter 16-18, including Rule 5.4 on professional independence. Limitation: The legislature page is dynamically rendered; counsel should confirm the current rule text, amendment history, exceptions, and related authority.

Wisconsin (WI) — SCR Chapter 20 — SCR 20:5.4, Professional independence of a lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s official SCR Chapter 20 compilation includes SCR 20:5.4 addressing fee sharing with nonlawyers and a lawyer’s professional independence. Limitation: No MSO-specific classification is made from this baseline rule; counsel should confirm current amendments, exceptions, and related Wisconsin authorities.

Alaska (AK) — Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Alaska Court System’s official rules compilation contains Rule 5.4 governing professional independence and addressing fee sharing and business relationships with nonlawyers. Limitation: This entry identifies the governing baseline rule; arrangement-specific application and any other authority require counsel review.

Arizona (AZ) — Alternative Business Structures Classification: authorized_framework. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Arizona Supreme Court’s licensing page states that an ABS may include nonlawyers with an economic interest or decision-making authority and provides legal services under Supreme Court Rules 31 and 31.1(c). Limitation: The official page displayed “Application Portal On Hold” when verified; current intake availability, licensing conditions, and entity-specific authorization require confirmation.

California (CA) — Rule 5.4 — Financial and Similar Arrangements with Nonlawyers Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2021-03-22. California Rule 5.4 addresses direct or indirect sharing of legal fees with nonlawyers, organizations involving nonlawyers, and nonlawyer authority to direct or control a lawyer. Limitation: The rule contains enumerated exceptions; this entry does not determine whether any particular structure or payment fits them.

Hawaii (HI) — Hawai‘i Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2014-01-01. Hawai‘i Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships and for-profit practice entities involving nonlawyers, and direction of professional judgment. Limitation: The cited effective date is for the adopted rules compilation; later amendments elsewhere in the compilation and arrangement-specific facts require counsel review.

Idaho (ID) — Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2026-03-09. The current Idaho State Bar compilation includes Rule 5.4 addressing fee sharing with nonlawyers, partnerships and practice entities involving nonlawyers, and control of professional judgment. Limitation: The date reflects the State Bar’s stated currency date for the compilation, not necessarily Rule 5.4’s adoption date; application to a particular arrangement requires counsel review.

Montana (MT) — Montana Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Montana Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships and for-profit practice entities involving nonlawyers, and direction or control of professional judgment. Limitation: This entry records the text in the official judiciary compilation and does not resolve arrangement-specific questions or other applicable law.

Nevada (NV) — Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2006-05-01. Nevada Rule 5.4 addresses legal-fee sharing with nonlawyers, partnerships and for-profit practice entities involving nonlawyers, and direction or control of professional judgment. Limitation: The rule includes specified exceptions; this entry does not assess any particular ownership, compensation, or services arrangement.

Oregon (OR) — Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2026-02-01. The Oregon State Bar compilation effective February 1, 2026 contains Rule 5.4 addressing fee sharing with nonlawyers, nonlawyer ownership or control, and specified referral arrangements. Limitation: The rule contains exceptions and cross-references; classification of a particular arrangement remains for counsel.

Utah (UT) — SCRP Rule 3-5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: time_limited_program. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2021-05-01. Utah Rule 3-5.4 permits specified fee sharing and practice with nonlawyers when authorized under Supreme Court Standing Order No. 15 and subject to independence, loyalty, confidentiality, and notice requirements. The opened amended Standing Order establishes a pilot sandbox effective August 14, 2020 and states a seven-year term unless otherwise provided. Limitation: Authorization is program- and entity-specific, and the standing order’s duration or terms may change; current approval status and conditions require confirmation.

Washington (WA) — RPC 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2006-09-01. Washington RPC 5.4 addresses legal-fee sharing with nonlawyers, partnerships and for-profit practice entities involving nonlawyers, and control of professional judgment. Its comments identify limited cross-rule circumstances, including Rule 5.9 and nonprofit referral services. Limitation: The cited date is the rule’s stated amendment date; cross-referenced rules, program status, and arrangement-specific facts require counsel review.

Wyoming (WY) — Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law — Rule 5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The Wyoming Judicial Branch’s official professional-conduct rules materials identify Rule 5.4 as Professional Independence of a Lawyer. Limitation: The judiciary page also listed later amendment materials with separate effective dates; the currently operative text and application to a particular arrangement should be confirmed by counsel.

Colorado (CO) — Colorado Legal Practice Integrity and Fee-Sharing Prohibition Act (HB 26-1421, ch. 403) Classification: specific_authority. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2026-08-12. The enacted session law defines alternative business structures and regulates specified fee-sharing, ownership, management, marketing, referral, and related arrangements involving lawyers, law firms, and nonlawyers. The act states that Part 4 is repealed effective September 1, 2029. Limitation: Application of statutory definitions, exceptions, remedies, and the repeal provision to a particular arrangement requires counsel review.

New Mexico (NM) — Rule Set 16 — Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 16-504: Professional independence of a lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. The official current New Mexico Rules Annotated collection identifies Rule 16-504 as the professional-independence rule within Article 5, Law Firms and Associations. No separate MSO-specific authority is represented in this baseline record. Limitation: This baseline record does not determine how Rule 16-504 applies to any particular ownership, compensation, or services arrangement.

Oklahoma (OK) — Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4 — Professional Independence of a Lawyer Classification: baseline_rule. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Effective or published: 2008-01-01. Rule 5.4 addresses sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, partnerships with nonlawyers where activities include practicing law, practice through specified professional entities, and interference with a lawyer’s independent professional judgment. The official OSCN record states that the rule was amended by 2007 OK 22 effective January 1, 2008. Limitation: This baseline record does not determine whether a specific management, financing, compensation, or entity structure falls within the rule or an exception.

Texas (TX) — Professional Ethics Committee Opinion No. 706 (February 2025) Classification: specific_authority. Review status: source checked; counsel review pending. Last verified: 2026-08-28. Opinion 706 applies Texas Disciplinary Rule 5.04 to a nonlawyer-owned provider of case-management, back-office, legal-support, and technology services, addressing percentage-of-revenue charges and a lawyer’s proposed equity investment. It also discusses Rules 1.06, 1.08, and 8.04 in connection with law-related services and investment conflicts. Limitation: The opinion is fact-specific and advisory; its treatment of Rule 5.04 and related rules should be assessed by counsel against the actual arrangement.