If a lawyer goes inactive in D.C. but stays active in other states, can his letterhead still list him as admitted to the D.C. Bar?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 271 (adopted April 16, 1997) answered a lawyer admitted in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia who was considering inactive D.C. Bar status to avoid the annual license fee, and who had never actually practiced in the District. He asked whether he could continue to state "Admitted to N.J., P.A. and D.C. bars" on his business cards, announcements, and letterhead after going inactive.

The committee concluded that the unqualified statement would be misleading once he became inactive, in violation of Rules 7.1 and 7.5. Rule 7.5 bars letterheads and professional designations that violate Rule 7.1, which prohibits false or misleading communications, including those that omit a fact necessary to keep the statement from being materially misleading. The committee drew on its Opinion 244 (nonlawyer partner's name permitted on letterhead only if the materials make clear the person is not a lawyer) and ABA Informal Opinion 89-1527 (same principle for listing nonlawyer personnel), reasoning that failing to distinguish those presently permitted to practice from those who are not is misleading. It also followed Nevada Ethics Opinion 14 (1993), which allowed a lawyer to list states where she was inactive only with a qualification noting that status.

Applying that rationale, the committee held that listing admission to the D.C. Bar without qualification implies a present ability to practice in the District. Under Rule II, section 4, of the D.C. Court of Appeals Rules Governing the Bar, no inactive member may practice law in the District, so the unqualified statement would create a false impression of present eligibility. The lawyer therefore must note his inactive status on his letterhead and business cards once that status takes effect.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 an inactive D.C. Bar member still say he is admitted to the D.C. Bar?

A: Only with a qualification. The committee concluded that listing D.C. admission without noting inactive status is misleading, because it implies a present ability to practice that an inactive member does not have.

Q: Why is the unqualified statement misleading?

A: The committee reasoned that, under the D.C. Court of Appeals Rules Governing the Bar, an inactive member may not practice in the District, so an unqualified "admitted to D.C." omits a fact necessary to keep the statement from being materially misleading under Rule 7.1.

Q: How should the lawyer fix it?

A: The committee concluded the lawyer must note his inactive status on his letterhead and business cards once that status becomes effective.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) by reference to Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communications, including misleading omissions), and applied the D.C. Court of Appeals Rules Governing the Bar (Rule II, section 4), under which inactive members may not practice in the District.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• D.C. RPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• D.C. RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)

Other opinions cited:

• D.C. Ethics Op. 244; ABA Informal Op. 89-1527 (1989); Nevada Ethics Op. 14 (1993)

See also

• DC Ethics Op. 332: Firm Names for Solo Practitioners
• DC Ethics Op. 277: Keeping a Departed Partner's Name
• DC Ethics Op. 278: Partnership With a Foreign Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-271