|
IT IS NOT IMPROPER FOR A LAW FIRM WITH OFFICES IN DIFFERENT CITIES
OR STATES TO USE A VARIATION IN THE FIRM NAME IN THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS,
PROVIDED THE LAWYERS INCLUDED IN THE NAME USED IN EACH LOCATION
ARE IN FACT PARTNERS.
FACTS
You inquire as to whether there is any prohibition against your
firm using a variation in the name of the firm as between its offices
in different cities. You propose that the name of a partner resident
of one city be eliminated in the firm name used in the other city.
DISCUSSION
The Committee finds no prohibition of the variation in firm name
which you propose.
Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association provides in part as follows:
"...In the selection and use of a firm name, no false, misleading,
assumed or trade name shall be used..."
The opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics emphasize that
in the selection of a firm name any name which is false or likely
to be misleading is prohibited. There must be no imposition or deception
in the firm name or letterhead.
Wise, on Legal Ethics, Chapter XIV at page 206 says:
"The Canons permit partnerships. Care must be taken that the
firm name and letterhead neither misrepresent nor conceal material
facts."
CONCLUSION
The variation in firm names which you propose does not appear to
contain anything false, misleading or deceptive. It may, in fact,
be more descriptive, rather than less descriptive, of the partnership.
This opinion assumes, of course, that all lawyers mentioned in the
firm name in both offices would be, in fact, partners. DR 2-102(c).
77-3, March 29, 1977
|
