Can Colorado lawyers who only share office space and expenses list each other as "associates" on their letterheads?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 8 (adopted June 26, 1959) addressed five lawyers occupying one suite of offices. Each ran an independent practice, kept separate books, files, and clients, and one lawyer paid the overhead and billed the others by the space they used. Their letterheads listed the office-sharing lawyer's name at the top and the other four under the heading "Associates."

The Committee concluded that this letterhead violated the Canons of Ethics. It found the format misleading because it implied that the lawyers were either partners or practiced together as an association with common clients, records, and files, and that it could be an attempt to lend weight and prestige to one lawyer's name. Where the sole or main relationship among lawyers is merely sharing office space and expenses, the opinion stated they should not imply a deeper relationship by adding each other's names to their letterheads. The Committee treated this as a violation of Canon 27 (prohibiting indirect advertising) and pointed to Canons 32 and 33 and ABA opinion 106.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1959 under the former Canons of Professional Ethics, before the Colorado Code of Professional Responsibility and before the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct took effect on January 1, 1993, and before Colorado's 2008 revisions to those rules. A 1995 addendum directed lawyers to current Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services must not be false or misleading) and Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), and to Opinion 89. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can Colorado lawyers who just share office space call each other "associates" on their letterhead?

A: No, under this opinion. The Committee concluded that listing co-tenant lawyers as "associates" on a letterhead misleadingly implies a partnership or shared practice and violated Canon 27's bar on indirect advertising.

Q: What made the letterhead misleading?

A: The opinion concluded it implied the lawyers were partners or practiced together with common clients, records, and files, when in fact each ran a separate practice and only shared space and expenses.

Q: Where does current guidance on this question live?

A: The 1995 addendum pointed lawyers to Colo. RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications) and Colo. RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), and to Opinion 89, which supplements this opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canons of Professional Ethics, principally Canon 27 (indirect advertising), with reference to Canons 32 and 33. The 1995 addendum maps the question onto the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, citing Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1, communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.5 (Model Rule 7.5, firm names and letterheads).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Colo. RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; per the 1995 addendum)
• Colo. RPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads; per the 1995 addendum)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 106 (firm-name and letterhead misrepresentation)
• CBA Formal Opinion 89 (supplementing this opinion, per the 1995 addendum)

See also

• CBA Formal Op. 9: Renting Office Space and Firm-Name Representations

Source

• Landing page: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
• Original PDF: https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_8_1995.pdf