IT IS IMPROPER FOR TWO OR MORE PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS
WHO SHARE OFFICE EXPENSES BUT ARE NOT IN FACT PARTNERS TO HOLD
THEMSELVES OUT AS A PARTNERSHIP. THIS PRECLUDES THEM FROM ADOPTING
A PARTNERSHIP NAME, SUCH AS "SMITH, JONES & BROWN"
AND FROM USING SUCH NAME ON THE DOOR OF THE LAW OFFICE, ON LETTERHEADS,
IN THE YELLOW PAGES OF THE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY, IN ANSWERING THE
TELEPHONE, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER.
APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS
EC 2-11: "The name
under which a lawyer conducts his practice may be a factor in
the selection process. The use of a trade name or an assumed name
could mislead laymen concerning the identity, responsibility,
and status of those practicing thereunder. Accordingly, a lawyer
in private practice should practice only under his own name, the
name of a lawyer employing him, a partnership name composed of
the name of one or more of the lawyers practicing in a partnership,
or, permitted by law, in the name of a professional legal corporation,
which should he clearly designated as such."
EC 2-13: "In order
to avoid the possibility of misleading persons with whom he deals,
a lawyer should be scrupulous in the representation of his professional
status. He should not hold himself out as being a partner or associate
of a law firm if he is not one in fact, and thus should not hold
himself out as a partner or associate if he only shares offices
with another lawyer."
DR 2-102(C): "A lawyer
shall not hold himself out as having a partnership with one or
more other lawyers unless they are in fact partners."
CANON 33:
The
inquirer states that he is one of three private practitioners
in a law office who is sharing office expenses but is unincorporated
and is not a partner. He inquires as to whether or not the name
"________, ________ & ________" can be used in answering
the office telephone, on the door of the office, in the yellow
pages of the telephone directory, and in their general practice.
The
provisions of DR 2-102(C) above quoted clearly compel an answer
in the negative. The use of a partnership name which implies a
sharing of liability and responsibility when, in fact, no such
joint liability exists, is misleading and a misrepresentation
to the public.
The Standing Committee on Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association has considered this question upon a number of occasions.
In Informal Opinion 555, the following appears:
"This Committee has stated on numerous occasions that it is
improper for a group of lawyers to hold themselves out as a partnership
when no partnership relation in fact exists. See Formal Opinions
106, 115, 126 and 277. Formal Opinion 277, in referring to Canon
13 which provides for partnerships among lawyers, states that there
must he a true partnership involving a joint and several responsibility."
In Formal Opinion 310, the answer is clearly expressed in the following
example:
"2. Smith and Jones each are individual
lawyers. Although they practice law together from the same suite
of offices and share in some of the costs of the practice, each
lawyer has his own clients and they do not share in the responsibility
and liability of each other."
* * *
"2. The word 'associates' would he misleading
to describe the situation existing in paragraph (2) above, when
there is no sharing of responsibility and liability. In the same
way, the joining of two or more of the names of such persons practicing
together into a title for the firm would be misleading and a violation
of Canon 33. For example: where there is no sharing of responsibility
and liability, 'Law Offices of Jones & Smith', or 'Jones &
Smith Attorneys and Counselors at Law', would be misleading. Each
lawyer should use separate stationery, with his own name and not
that of a firm on it. He should not join his name with others on
cards, in law lists, or in telephone directories. The door of the
firm when otherwise appropriate, may contain the names of the persons
practicing therein no more closely connected than the following
example:
Law Offices
Charles W. Jones
Peter S. Smith"
For
the foregoing reasons, the Opinion of the Committee is that the
requested use of the names is not permissible.
73-11
|
