or Hollender’s participation in the litigation; and (5) the total fees to the client were reasonable. Due to Hollender’s untimely death and the trial court’s staying discovery of Eggen’s files, the limited record before us does not reveal whether Hollender or Eggen disclosed to the client orally or in correspondence the percentage of fees each attorney was to receive under the agreement. Therefore, a genuine fact issue exists as to whether the fee-sharing agreement complied with Minn.R.Prof. Conduct 1.5(e). Although the fee agreement may not have satisfied each provision of the fee-splitting rule, an attorney’s violation of the rules of professional conduct does not give rise to a civil cause of action. See L & H Airco, Inc. v. Rapistan Corp., 446 N.W.2d 372, 380 (Minn.1989) (<HOLDING>). Neither, we conclude, may such a violation
holding fraud claims do not provide a suitable basis for classwide relief recognizing professional rules do not augment substantive legal duties or extradisciplinary consequences holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury