May an Alaska law firm's name include a partner who is not admitted to practice in Alaska?

Plain-English summary

In a February 11, 1969 opinion, the Committee had held that a partnership between Alaska-admitted and non-Alaska-admitted lawyers was permissible but that the firm name used in Alaska could include only the names of partners admitted in Alaska. The Committee was now asked whether that conclusion had been changed by DR 2-102(D), which provides that a partnership among lawyers licensed in different jurisdictions may continue if the listings of members make clear the jurisdictional limitations of those not licensed in all listed jurisdictions, and adds that "the same firm name may be used in each jurisdiction."

The opinion concluded that, because the Code of Professional Responsibility had been approved by the Board of Governors and the Alaska Supreme Court, the Committee's 1969 opinion should be taken as no longer controlling on the question. Under DR 2-102(D) as adopted, the same firm name may be used in each jurisdiction provided the jurisdictional limitations are made clear.

The opinion concluded by recommending that the Board of Governors and the Supreme Court amend DR 2-102(D), as applicable in Alaska, to eliminate the language permitting the same firm name in each jurisdiction. The Committee reasoned that explanatory statements on letterhead, signs, and directory listings are inadequate to destroy the natural implication that all persons named in the firm name may practice in Alaska, because in common parlance the name is used without the accompanying disclaimers; quoting Drinker, it found no social utility in allowing a firm name to include a lawyer not permitted to practice in Alaska against the risk of misrepresentation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, before the Alaska Bar Association's adoption of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (it applies the former Code of Professional Responsibility) and before the 2009 revisions to those rules. The rules on firm names and letterhead have since been recodified. The opinion's recommendation to amend DR 2-102(D) reflects the rule as it then stood. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific point mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could an Alaska firm's name include a partner not admitted in Alaska under the rule as adopted?

A: The opinion concluded that DR 2-102(D) as adopted permitted using the same firm name in each jurisdiction if the jurisdictional limitations were made clear, so the 1969 bar on doing so no longer controlled.

Q: What did the Committee recommend?

A: The opinion recommended that the Board of Governors and the Supreme Court amend DR 2-102(D) to remove the allowance, concluding that disclaimers cannot dispel the implication that all named partners may practice in Alaska.

Q: Why did the Committee think disclaimers were not enough?

A: Per the opinion, a firm name is used in common parlance without the accompanying explanatory statements, so the name alone implies that every named member may practice in Alaska.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted DR 2-102(D) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, governing firm names for partnerships of lawyers licensed in different jurisdictions, and discussed the Committee's superseded 1969 opinion. Those subjects are now treated by Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services). It relied on Drinker's Legal Ethics.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former Code; cf. Model Rules):

• DR 2-102(D) (firm names across jurisdictions) (cf. Model Rule 7.5, Model Rule 7.1)

See also

• Alaska Ethics Op. 94-2: Simultaneous Use of Two Firm Names
• Alaska Ethics Op. 89-2: Withdrawal of Outdated Ethics Opinions
• Alaska Ethics Op. 2010-1: Out-of-State Lawyer in an Immigration Office

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/71-3.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Ethics Opinion No. 71-3
Propriety of Firm Names Including Lawyers not Admitted in Alaska.
On February 11, 1969 the Committee published an opinion holding that
the establishment of a partnership for the practice of law in Alaska between
lawyers admitted in Alaska and lawyers who are not admitted in Alaska is
permissible and that the firm name used in Alaska may included only the
names of partners admitted in Alaska.
The Committee has now been asked whether its conclusion that a firm
name may not include the name of an attorney not admitted in Alaska has
been changed by DR 2-102(D) which states:
"A partnership shall not be formed or continued between or among lawyers
licensed in different jurisdictions unless all enumerations of the members and
associates of the firm on its letterhead and in other permissible listings, make
clear the jurisdictional limitations of those members and associates of the firm not
licensed to practice in all listed jurisdictions; however, the same firm name may
be used in each jurisdiction."
The Code of Professional Responsibility has been approved in Alaska by the
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association and by the Supreme Court of
the State of Alaska. The Committee's opinion of February 11, 1969 should
therefore be taken as no longer controlling on the question.
The Committee recommends that the Board of Governors of the Alaska
Bar Association and the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska amend DR 2102(D) as far as the same is applicable in Alaska by eliminating the language,
"however, the same firm name may be used in each jurisdiction." We make this
recommendation because we believe that explanatory statements on the
letterhead, office signs, telephone directory listings, etc. are entirely inadequate
to destroy the natural implication that all persons whose names are part of the
firm name are entitled to practice in Alaska. This is so because when the name
is used in common parlance it will ordinarily not be accompanied by the
disclaimers needed to tell the listener who among the named members of the
firm are disqualified from practicing law in Alaska. Drinker states:
"The partnership name may not include that of one not locally admitted, despite
explanatory statements on the letterhead, shingle, etc. since the name, used where
no such explanation accompanied it, would imply that all the named partners were
locally admitted." Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 205.
We find no social utility in allowing a firm name to contain the name of a
lawyer not permitted to practice in Alaska; on the other hand there are
substantial opportunities for the abuses of misrepresentation and advertising
inherent in this practice. For these reasons we strongly recommend that the
1

Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association and the Supreme Court of
Alaska amend DR 2-102(D) as suggested in this opinion.
Adopted by Board of Governors on May 26, 1971.

G:\Ds\COMM\Ethics\Ethics Opinions for CDROM\1971\71-3.doc

2