Could a Colorado law firm list nonlawyer staff on letterhead or give them firm business cards?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1990. Ask about yours and see what the current Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 84 reconsidered an earlier blanket prohibition after Supreme Court advertising decisions and changes to Colorado's rules. It concluded that a law firm could place a nonlawyer employee's name on firm letterhead and issue the employee a firm business card when the person's nonlawyer status was clear and the communication was not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive.
The permission did not end the lawyer's supervisory responsibility. Lawyers had to review proper uses of the letterhead and cards with staff and could not attribute a violation solely to the employee. A nonlawyer who signed a letter without clearly stating the person's role, or failed to disclose the role in an interview, could mislead the public even when the printed card or letterhead was facially accurate.
The 1995 addendum stated that Colorado Rules 5.3, 7.1, and 7.5(a) continued the same core result after the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the former Code.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1990 under the Colorado Code of Professional Responsibility and received a 1995 addendum identifying corresponding Rules of Professional Conduct. It predates Colorado's 2008 revisions. Later advertising, firm-designation, and supervision rules may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on a specific card or letterhead format.
Common questions
Q: Could a paralegal's name appear on firm letterhead?
A: Yes, under the opinion, if the letterhead clearly identified the person as a nonlawyer and was not false or misleading.
Q: Could the firm give a nonlawyer employee a business card?
A: Yes, subject to the same clear status disclosure and truthfulness requirements.
Q: Was accurate printing enough if the employee used the card misleadingly?
A: No. The opinion held the firm responsible for supervising use and stated that an employee's conduct could still mislead even when the card itself correctly stated the role.
Background and rules framework
The opinion's 1995 addendum mapped its analysis to Colorado RPC 5.3 on nonlawyer assistants, Rule 7.5(a) on false or misleading firm names and professional designations, and Rule 7.1 on false or misleading communications about legal services.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Colo. RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants)
- Colo. RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
- Former Colo. RPC 7.5(a) (firm names, letterhead, and professional designations)
Cases:
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), lawyer advertising
- In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), restrictions on lawyer advertising
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), lawyer advertising disclosures
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), targeted written solicitation
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Informal Opinion 89-1527: nonlawyer support personnel on letterhead and business cards
- CBA Formal Opinion 61: responsibility for nonlawyer personnel
- CBA Formal Opinion 83: lawyer advertising, solicitation, and publicity
See also
- Alabama Ethics Op. 1990-01: Paralegal Business Cards
- CBA Formal Op. 122: Internet-Based Lawyer Marketing
Source
- Landing page: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
- Original PDF: Colorado Formal Ethics Opinion 84
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1990. Ezel checks the current Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace