Can a California law office practice under a trade name instead of the lawyers' own names?
State Bar of California Formal Opinion 1982-66: Law Office Trade Names
Short answer: The committee concluded that the 1979 repeal of former Rule 2-103(B) permits California attorneys to practice under a trade name, so long as the name is not false, deceptive, or misleading under former Rule 2-101 and a law corporation's name complies with Business and Professions Code section 6164.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1982, before the State Bar of California's adoption of the November 1, 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It interprets former Rule 2-101 (advertising standards) and the 1979 repeal of former Rule 2-103(B) (the trade-name ban), areas now addressed by Model Rules 7.5 and 7.1 and California Rules 7.5 and 7.1. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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, case, or requirement mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the State Bar of California's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Plain-English summary
The committee was asked whether a law office may use a trade name rather than a name containing a member's own name. It concluded that the California Supreme Court's repeal of former Rule 2-103(B), effective April 1, 1979, permits attorneys to use trade names. Former Rule 2-103(B) had barred a private practitioner from practicing under a trade name or any name other than a firm or corporate name containing the name of one or more lawyers in the firm.
Applying principles of statutory construction, the committee reasoned that while repeal of a rule is generally intended to change the law, courts will not presume a repeal overturns long-established principles unless that intent is clear by express declaration or necessary implication. It found the intent to permit trade names clear by implication, relying on the Final Report and Recommendation of the Special Committee on Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation (November 1978), which the Board of Governors and Supreme Court had before them and which stated that repeal would let members practice under trade or fictitious business names subject to the false, deceptive, and misleading standards of former Rule 2-101.
The committee concluded the new freedom is not unrestricted. A law corporation's name remains limited by Business and Professions Code section 6164 to the names of shareholders plus words denoting corporate existence. And because a name under which a member holds out to the public as practicing law is a "communication" within former Rule 2-101 (citing Jacoby v. State Bar), a trade name is subject to that rule's prohibitions on false, deceptive, or misleading statements, improper claims of specialization, and the Board's presumptions under Rule 2-101(D). The report noted a name may be misleading if, for example, it implies public support (such as including "Legal Services") or is deceptive about who performs the services. The committee expressly did not address when an attorney may ethically use more than one trade name.
Common questions
Q: Can a California law office use a trade name?
A: Yes. The committee concluded that the 1979 repeal of former Rule 2-103(B) permits attorneys to practice under a trade name, subject to the standards of former Rule 2-101.
Q: Are there limits on the trade name a lawyer can use?
A: Yes. The committee concluded a trade name is a "communication" under former Rule 2-101 and so may not be false, deceptive, or misleading, may not improperly claim specialization, and is subject to the Board's presumptions; a name implying public support, such as "Legal Services," may be misleading.
Q: Do the same rules apply to a law corporation's name?
A: A law corporation faces an additional limit: Business and Professions Code section 6164 restricts its name to the names of shareholders plus words denoting corporate existence.
Q: Did the opinion address using more than one trade name?
A: No. The committee expressly stated it did not address when an attorney may ethically use more than one trade name.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Rule 2-101 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (advertising and communications standards) and the 1979 repeal of former Rule 2-103(B) (the prohibition on trade names), along with Business and Professions Code section 6164 (law corporation names). Firm names and trade names are now addressed by Model Rules 7.5 and 7.1 and their California counterparts.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former California Rule 2-101 (communications; false, deceptive, or misleading standards), subdivisions (A), (D)
- Former California Rule 2-103(B) (trade-name prohibition, repealed effective April 1, 1979)
Statutes:
- Business and Professions Code section 6164 (law corporation names)
- Business and Professions Code section 6077 (rulemaking authority)
Cases:
- Jacoby v. State Bar (1977) 19 Cal.3d 359 [138 Cal. Rptr. 77, 562 P.2d 1326]
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) 433 U.S. 350 [97 S.Ct. 2691]
- In re W. R. W. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1029 [95 Cal. Rptr. 354]
See also
- CA Ethics Op. 1982-67: Mail Advertising of Fees for Legal Services
- CA Ethics Op. 1981-61: Soliciting Business Directly From Another Lawyer
Source
- Landing page: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-opinions
- Original opinion: https://www.calbar.org/ethics/Opinions/1982-66.htm
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT
FORMAL OPINION NO. 1982-66
ISSUE:
Is it proper to use a single "trade name" for a law office and, if so, is it proper to use multiple trade names for the same law office?
DIGEST:
It is permissible for attorneys to use a single "trade name" for a law office, so long as it otherwise complies with rule 2-101 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code section 6164.
AUTHORITIES INTERPRETED:
Rule 2-101 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar.
Business and Professions Code section 6184.
DISCUSSION
The Committee has received numerous requests for an opinion regarding the propriety of using a "trade name" to identify a law office as opposed to using a name that clearly contains the name of a member of the State Bar. It is the opinion of the Committee that the effect of the repeal of former rule 2-103(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the Supreme Court of the State of California, effective April 1, 1979, is to permit the use of trade names by attorneys.
Former rule 2-103(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provided,
"A member of the State Bar in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name, or any name other than a firm or corporate name containing the name of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that the name of a professional corporation shall contain the words or wording or abbreviations denoting corporate existence, and if otherwise lawful a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name, the name or names of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession."
This rule was repealed by the California Supreme Court, on the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the State Bar.
There is a general presumption that repeal of a statute is intended to change the law. However, the courts will not presume that a repeal is intended to overthrow long-established principles of law, unless that intention is made clear by express declaration or necessary implication. (In re W. R. W. (1971) 17 Cal. App.3d 1029, 1036 [95 Cal.Rptr. 354].)
By analogy, is the Supreme Court's repeal of former rule 2-103(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct an intent to permit the use by attorneys of "trade names"? Although that intention is not indicated expressly in the rules, the Committee believes that it is clear by implication that the intent of the Board of Governors and the Supreme Court was to permit such use.
Statements in legislative reports concerning the statutory purposes which are in accordance with a reasonable interpretation of the statute will be followed, and it will be presumed that the Legislature adopted the proposed legislation with the intent and meaning expressed in the Committee reports. (In re Marriage of Paddock (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 355, 359 [95 Cal.Rptr. 652].) When the Board of Governors and Supreme Court are acting in a legislative capacity in formulating, adopting and approving rules of professional conduct, pursuant to section 6077 of the Business and Professions Code, these principles of statutory construction are instructive in determining their intent.
The effect of the repeal was discussed in the Final Report and Recommendation of the Special Committee on Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation, November 1978 (at pp. 25-26):
"This proposal recommends the repeal of present rule 2-103(B), which prohibits the use of trade names. Thus, members of the State Bar may practice under trade or fictitious business names, subject to the general false, deceptive and misleading standards set forth in proposed Rule 2-101.
"It should be noted that the misleading character of a trade name may be measured by the following standards, among others: Whether it implies that the firm is publicly supported (as, for example, by including the words 'Legal Services'), whether it is deceptive with respect to the identities of the member of the bar who is performing professional services, and whether it is misleading as to the types of services offered. Use of the words 'clinic' or 'legal clinic' in conjunction with the names of the members of the bar who are performing services has been validated by the California Supreme Court. (Jacoby v. State Bar (1977) 19 Cal.3d 359, 366) and the United States Supreme Court (Bates v. Arizona State Bar 433 U.S. at 350, [97 S.Ct. at 2708]) so long as the firm in fact engaged in a clinic-type practice.
"Although the repeal of this rule would eliminate the requirement of present rule 2-103(B) that lawyers use the name of the members of the firm in the firm name as to sole practitioners and partnerships, Business and Professions Code section 6164 requires that the name of a professional corporation is limited to the names of shareholders and that it also include the words 'professional corporation' or other wording denoting corporate existence."
Since the Board of Governors and the California Supreme Court had this report before them in considering the proposed repeal of former rule 2-103(B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it is presumed that they adopted the intent and meaning expressed in this report.
Although attorneys are now permitted to use trade names, such use is not without restriction. As indicated above, section 6164 of the Business and Professions Code requires the name of a law corporation be restricted to the names of shareholders and include the words "professional corporation," or other words denoting corporate existence.
In addition, names of firms, offices, organizations or other entities under which a member of the bar holds himself or herself out to the public as practicing law are considered "communications" within the meaning of rule 2-101 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (See also Jacoby v. State Bar (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 359, 378-380 [138 Cal. Rptr. 77, 562 P.2d 1326].) Such names are therefore subject to the requirements imposed by that rule with respect to (1) false, deceptive or misleading statements, (2) representations of specialization, and (3) presumptions promulgated by the Board of Governors pursuant to the provisions of rule 2-101(D) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is the opinion of the Committee that rule 2-101 was intended to apply to names of firms, offices, organizations or other entities under which a member holds himself or herself out to the public as practicing law, including trade names.1
This opinion is issued by the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct of The State Bar of California. It is advisory only. It is not binding upon the courts, The State Bar of California, its Board of Governors, any persons or tribunals charged with regulatory responsibilities, or any member of the State Bar.
1 We do not here address the question of when an attorney may ethically use more than one "trade name."