Can a lawyer or firm market the same practice under two different firm names at the same time?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an attorney or firm may simultaneously use more than one name to market its legal services. Under the assumed facts, the same practice, with the same address, phone, and range of services, would advertise under a trade name suggesting concentration in one area of law while also using "Law Office of [Attorney's Name]" to market a domestic relations or similar practice, with the attorney's name appearing in all advertisements for both names.

The opinion concluded that simultaneously using two different names to identify and market one law practice is not inherently false or misleading and is not prohibited by the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied Rule 7.5(a), which allows a trade name in private practice that does not imply a connection with a government agency or a public or charitable legal services organization and does not otherwise violate Rule 7.1, and Rule 7.1, which bars false or misleading communications. The question therefore reduced to whether using two names, without disclosing that the firm is also known by the other name, would mislead.

The opinion reasoned that, assuming neither name is itself misleading, the existence of a second marketing name is not information a client would ordinarily need: where one name is not being used to escape opprobrium or discredit attached to the other, and the multiple names serve only to market to different types of clients, there is no apparent reason a client's decision would be affected by knowing of the second name, so disclosure is not required. The opinion noted that Rule 7.5(b), which lets a multi-jurisdiction firm use the same name across jurisdictions, by implication also permits such a firm to use different names in different jurisdictions, lending some support to its conclusion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, before Alaska's adoption of the 2009 revisions to the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could one lawyer advertise the same practice under two different firm names?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded the simultaneous use of two names to market one practice is not inherently false or misleading and is not prohibited, so long as neither name is itself misleading.

Q: Did the lawyer have to disclose that the two names were the same firm?

A: The opinion concluded disclosure was not required where neither name was misleading and the second name was used only to market to different clients, because that fact would not ordinarily affect a client's decision.

Q: When would using a second name be a problem?

A: The opinion indicated a problem where one name is used to escape opprobrium or discredit attached to the other, or where a name is itself false or misleading under Rule 7.1.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 (Model Rule 7.5, firm names and letterheads), particularly Rule 7.5(a) on trade names and Rule 7.5(b) on multi-jurisdiction firms, in light of Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1, false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.5 / Alaska RPC 7.5(a), (b) (firm names, letterheads, and trade names)
• Model Rule 7.1 / Alaska RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications)

See also

• Alaska Ethics Op. 2009-2: Advertising Lawyer Ranking Systems
• Alaska Ethics Op. 2010-1: Out-of-State Lawyer's Immigration Office
• Alaska Ethics Op. 2020-2: Publicizing Client Recoveries

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/94-2.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
ETHICS OPINION 94-2
Simultaneous Use of More Than One Name For Law Firm
The Committee has been asked whether an attorney or firm may
simultaneously use more than one name for the purpose of marketing legal
services offered by the attorney or firm. Under the assumed facts, the attorney
or firm proposes to advertise using a trade name employing the phrase ". . .
Law Firm" preceeded by geographical or other references which might connote
a practice concentrating in one area of law, while at the same using "Law Office
of [Attorneys Name]" to market a domestic relations or a similar practice. Both
"entities" would in fact be identical, with the same address and telephone, and
providing the same range of legal services. Only the letterhead and
advertisements would be different, and the attorney's name would be included
in all advertisements for both names.
It is the opinion of the Committee that the simultaneous use of two
different names to identify and market a law practice is not inherently false or
misleading, and is not prohibited by the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct.
The subject of "Firm Names and Letterheads," is addressed in Rule 7.5 of
the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct. While that Rule does not specifically
address the issue raised, section (a) does provide the basic criteria. That
provision states:
(a)
A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or
other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. A
trade name may be used by a lawyer in private practice
if it does not imply a connection with a government
agency or with a public or charitable legal services
organization and is not otherwise in violation of Rule
7.1.
In effect, Rule 7.1 simply requires communications by lawyers to be
truthful. To the extent applicable to this opinion, it provides:
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading
communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's
services or any prospective client's need for legal
services. A communication is false or misleading if it:

1

(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or
law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement
considered as a whole not materially misleading.
....
Therefore, the issue to be addressed is whether simultaneous use of two
different names to market a law firm is false or misleading because the
communications would of necessity misrepresent or omit a fact necessary to
the correct understanding of the communications.
Assuming neither of the firm names used is false or misleading by itself,
and evaluating the issue based solely on the use of more than one name, the
question would be whether the simultaneous use of two names for a firm would
be misleading if the communication did not also advise the recipient that the
firm was known by another name. If one of the names is not being used
because of opprobrium or discredit associated with the other name, and if the
use of multiple names is solely for the purpose of marketing to different types
of clients, there is no apparent reason why a client might want to know that
the lawyer is using more than one name to market his practice. In the absence
of some facts making it reasonable to assume that the decision of a client to
utilize the services of a lawyer practicing under one entity name would be
affected by knowledge that the lawyer also uses another entity name to market
his practice, that information does not appear to be of a nature requiring
disclosure.
The committee has noted that section (b) of Rule 7.5 permits a law firm
with offices in more than one jurisdiction to use the same name in both
jurisdictions, provided the firm indicates the jurisdictional limitations of any
lawyers not authorized to practice in both jurisdictions. By implication, that
provision authorizes law firms practicing in more than one jurisdiction to use a
different name in each jurisdiction, even though the composition of the law
firm is the same. While that provision is intended to prohibit
misrepresentation regarding a lawyer's authority to practice in a particular
jurisdiction, it does lend some support to the Committee's opinion.
Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on March 7, 1994.
Adopted by the Board of Governors on May 3, 1994.
245WP1MANUL

G:\DS\EC&OPS\OPINIONS\94-2.DOC

2