Can a Colorado lawyer who only rents office space to other lawyers list them as part of his firm or as associated with him?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 9 (adopted June 26, 1959) addressed a lawyer, A, who held himself out by letterhead, telephone listing, and otherwise as a member of the firm "A, B, and C," and represented that D, E, and F were associated with or employed by the firm. In fact no partnership or employer-employee relationship existed; B, C, D, E, and F merely rented space from A.

The Committee concluded these representations violated the Canons of Ethics. It treated the situation as similar to Opinion 8 but more aggravated. Relying on ABA Opinion 106, the opinion reasoned that a lawyer may not represent that other lawyers are partners (by including them in a firm name) when they are merely employees, and therefore cannot do so when they are merely tenants. The opinion cited Canons 27, 32, and 33, and, as in Opinion 8, found the representations misleading because they implied an association that did not in fact exist.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a Colorado lawyer who rents space to other lawyers put their names in his firm name?

A: No, under this opinion. The Committee concluded that including space-renting lawyers in a firm name, or otherwise representing them as associated, is a misleading representation of a relationship that does not exist.

Q: How is this different from Opinion 8?

A: The opinion treated it as the same principle but more aggravated: where Opinion 8 involved listing co-tenants as "associates," here the lawyer went further and used the others' names in a firm name and held them out as firm members or employees.

Q: What rule governs firm names today?

A: The 1995 addendum points to Colo. RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications) and Colo. RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), and to Opinion 89.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canons of Professional Ethics, principally Canons 27, 32, and 33, and followed ABA Opinion 106 on firm-name misrepresentation. The 1995 addendum maps the question to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, citing Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1) 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 misrepresentation)
• CBA Formal Opinion 8 (the closely related office-sharing letterhead question)
• CBA Formal Opinion 89 (supplementing this opinion, per the 1995 addendum)

See also

• CBA Formal Op. 8: "Associates" on Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
• Original PDF: https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_9_2011.pdf