Can a D.C. law firm use the abbreviations L.L.C., L.L.P., or P.L.L.C. in its name, or must it spell out the business form?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 254 (adopted March 21, 1995) revisited the committee's 1993 Opinion 235, which had allowed D.C. Bar members to practice in local offices of out-of-state limited-liability firms but required the formal firm name to spell out the limited-liability business form in full rather than abbreviate it, because the forms were then unfamiliar in the jurisdiction. The committee had anticipated that abbreviations like "L.L.P." or "L.L.C." might one day be as well understood as "P.C." or "P.A."

The committee concluded that intervening District of Columbia legislation had changed the analysis. The Registered Limited Liability Partnership Amendment Act (1993) and the Limited Liability Company Act of 1994 both expressly authorized firms to use the abbreviations: D.C. Code § 41-144 allowed an RLLP name to contain "Registered Limited Liability Partnership" or the abbreviation "L.L.P.", and D.C. Code § 29-1304 allowed the words "limited liability company" or "L.L.C.", and "professional limited liability company" or "P.L.L.C." In light of those enactments, the committee concluded there was no reason to disallow the abbreviations and revised the position it had taken in Opinion 235. A firm so organized satisfies Rules 7.1(a) and 7.5(a) and (b) by identifying its business form either in full or by the appropriate abbreviation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 D.C. law firm abbreviate its limited-liability form in its name?

A: Yes. The committee concluded that a firm organized as an LLC, LLP, or PLLC may use "L.L.C.", "L.L.P.", or "P.L.L.C." in its formal name and satisfy Rules 7.1 and 7.5.

Q: Why did this change from the earlier opinion?

A: Because of new statutes. The committee concluded that the District of Columbia's 1993 and 1994 limited-liability statutes expressly authorized the abbreviations, so the full-spelling requirement of Opinion 235 was no longer warranted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 7.1(a) (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.5(a) and (b) (firm names and letterheads), measuring firm-name designations against the District of Columbia's limited-liability entity statutes. It revised the committee's earlier Opinion 235.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• D.C. RPC 7.1(a) / Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services)
• D.C. RPC 7.5(a), (b) / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)

Statutes:

• D.C. Code § 41-144 (name of a registered limited liability partnership)
• D.C. Code § 29-1304 (names of limited liability companies and professional limited liability companies)

Other opinions cited:

• D.C. Bar Op. 235 (1993): out-of-state limited-liability firms and the full-spelling requirement (revised by this opinion)

See also

• DC Ethics Op. 277: Retention by a Former Law Firm of a Withdrawing Partner's Name
• DC Ethics Op. 271: Inactive Members' Business Cards and Letterhead
• DC Ethics Op. 332: Firm Names for Solo Practitioners

Source

• Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-254