We concur in the findings of misconduct by the board. After reviewing both the record and the board’s report, we conclude that Dalrymple’s estate planning information was transmitted to respondent by a non-lawyer and that the non-lawyer set the initial fee before either the client or the non-lawyer consulted with respondent. The respondent entered into a relationship that allowed the client to perceive that the setting of a fee, the obtaining of information, and the possible refund of the fee- could be controlled by a non-lawyer. An attorney should avoid even the perception that his or her work can be influenced or controlled by a party other than the client. We agree with the board that a public reprimand is warranted and respondent is so reprimanded. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.