Can a D.C. law firm put a nonlawyer partner's name in the firm name, and what disclosure is required?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 244 (adopted November 23, 1993) addressed a sole practitioner who proposed forming a partnership with a nonlawyer investigator to provide legal services in personal-injury and property-damage cases, with the nonlawyer supplying investigation, nonlegal research, and administrative support. The firm would be called "Smith & Jones." The lawyer asked whether the arrangement complied with Rule 5.4(b), whether the nonlawyer's name could appear in the firm name, and whether the firm had to make clear to clients that the named partner is not a lawyer.
The committee concluded that the arrangement complied with Rule 5.4(b), a provision unique to the District that permits a nonlawyer to hold a financial interest or managerial authority in an organization providing legal services if the organization's sole purpose is providing legal services, all such nonlawyers agree to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyers undertake responsibility for the nonlawyers as under Rule 5.1, and these conditions are set out in writing. On the proposed facts, those conditions were met.
The committee then concluded that the nonlawyer partner's name could appear in the firm name. Rule 7.5(a) forbids a firm name that violates Rule 7.1's bar on false or misleading communications, and earlier Opinion 45 (1978) had barred a nonlawyer's name under the former Code. But because Rule 5.4(b) eliminated the traditional bar on lawyer-nonlawyer partnerships, the committee concluded a firm name no longer implies that every partner is a lawyer, so including a nonlawyer partner's name is not inherently misleading. To avoid misunderstanding, the firm must disclose on its letterhead, business cards, and professional listings that the firm includes a nonlawyer partner; if individual names are listed, the nonlawyer must be identified by a designation such as "investigator" or "firm administrator" that makes clear he is not a lawyer.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the 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: Can a nonlawyer partner's name go in a D.C. law firm's name?
A: Yes, with disclosure. The committee concluded that where the partnership complies with Rule 5.4(b), a nonlawyer partner's name may appear in the firm name as long as the firm discloses that the named partner is not a lawyer.
Q: What disclosure does the firm have to make?
A: A clear statement that the firm includes a nonlawyer. The committee concluded the disclosure must appear on letterhead, business cards, and professional listings; if names are listed individually, the nonlawyer must carry a designation such as "investigator" or "firm administrator."
Q: Doesn't D.C. forbid partnerships between lawyers and nonlawyers?
A: No longer. The committee concluded that Rule 5.4(b), which is unique to the District, eliminated the traditional bar and permits a nonlawyer to hold a financial interest or managerial authority in a firm whose sole purpose is providing legal services, subject to its written conditions.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 5.4(b) (the District's distinctive provision permitting nonlawyer financial interest or managerial authority in a law practice, subject to four written conditions) together with Rule 7.5(a) (firm names and letterhead) and Rule 7.1(a) (false or misleading communications). The committee explained that the move from the former Code's detailed firm-name restrictions to Rule 7.1's general bar on misleading communications, combined with Rule 5.4(b), changed the analysis it had applied in Opinion 45.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 5.4(b) / Model Rule 5.4 (practice with nonlawyers; D.C.'s nonlawyer-interest provision)
- D.C. RPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterhead)
- D.C. RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Bar Opinion 45 (1978): under the former Code, a nonlawyer's name could not appear in a firm name
- D.C. Bar Opinion 38 (July 19, 1977): a nonlawyer patent agent may be listed on firm letterhead with the designation "patent agent"
- ABA Informal Op. 89-1527 (Feb. 22, 1989): a nonlawyer executive director may be listed if the listing makes clear the person is a nonlawyer
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 254: L.L.P. and L.L.C. Abbreviations
- DC Ethics Op. 322: Nonlawyer Pay From Case Profits
- ABA Formal Op. 499: Passive Investment in an ABS
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-244
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1993 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.