Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 757.45 (2026)

Sharing of compensation by attorneys prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

757.45757.45 Sharing of compensation by attorneys prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to divide with or receive from, or to agree to divide with or receive from, any attorney or group of attorneys, whether practicing in this state or elsewhere, either before or after action brought, any portion of any fee or compensation, charged or received by such attorney or any valuable consideration or reward, as an inducement for placing or in consideration of having placed, in the hands of such attorney, or in the hands of another person, a claim or demand of any kind for the purpose of collecting such claim, or bringing an action thereon, or of representing claimant in the pursuit of any civil remedy for the recovery thereof; but this section does not apply to an agreement between attorneys and counselors at law when associated in the conduct of legal matters to divide between themselves the compensation to be received. Any person violating this section shall be fined not to exceed $500 or imprisoned not to exceed 6 months.

757.45 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 187 s. 96; Stats. 1977 s. 757.45.

757.45 AnnotationThe agreement that a non-attorney would solicit clients for an attorney, in violation of s. 757.295, in exchange for payment of 25 percent of the attorney’s fee, in violation of this section, was unenforceable on the grounds of unjust enrichment or restitution. Abbott v. Marker, 2006 WI App 174, 295 Wis. 2d 636, 722 N.W.2d 162, 05-2853.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: Abbott v. Marker, 2006 WI App 174 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Abbott v. Marker, 2006 WI App 174 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Payment of 25% of Marker's attorney fee would violate Wis. Stat. § 757.45 . Therefore, requiring Marker to pay Abbott for the Richardson case would violate Wisconsin's prohibition of court enforcement of illegal contracts, and we decline Abbott's invitation to ignore this…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.