Can a D.C. lawyer form a partnership or professional association with a foreign lawyer who is not licensed in any U.S. jurisdiction?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1998. 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 278 (adopted February 18, 1998) responded to a D.C. Bar member who asked whether he and his firm could practice law in partnership with a lawyer licensed only in Sweden, who would be resident in the firm's London office and practicing in accordance with United Kingdom rules. The committee framed the question as whether a D.C. lawyer may practice in partnership with a foreign lawyer licensed outside the United States but not in any U.S. jurisdiction.
The committee answered yes, with safeguards. It reasoned by analogy to multi-jurisdictional partnerships among U.S. lawyers, which the District has long accepted, subject to the condition that the association not impair the D.C. lawyer's ability to meet ethical obligations such as protecting client confidences and avoiding conflicts. The committee held that the same approach extends to partnerships with foreign lawyers not licensed in any U.S. jurisdiction. The critical inquiry, to be made case by case, is whether any aspect of the association is likely to impair the D.C. lawyer's ability to satisfy the applicable ethical requirements. The committee said this calls for considering the general similarity of the foreign lawyer's educational requirements and the compatibility of the professional-conduct and discipline standards governing the foreign lawyer; if the foreign lawyer's training were materially less or the governing standards so incompatible that the association would impair the D.C. lawyer's compliance, the partnership might not be permissible.
The committee identified additional requirements. Under Rule 5.5(b) and D.C. App. R. 49, the D.C. lawyer may not assist the foreign lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law in the District. Under Rule 7.5(b), a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each, but must indicate the jurisdictional limitations of lawyers not licensed where the office sits, so the letterhead must identify where each lawyer is licensed. Under Rule 7.5(d), the lawyer may state or imply a partnership only when one in fact exists, so the D.C. lawyer should confirm, under both U.S. and foreign law, that the relationship is accurately described to clients. The committee noted it was joining other jurisdictions, such as New York, that had reached the same conclusion, and was aware of none holding otherwise.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998, 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. lawyer partner with a lawyer licensed only outside the United States?
A: The opinion concluded yes, so long as the partnership or association will not compromise the D.C. lawyer's ability to uphold ethical standards such as confidentiality and conflict avoidance.
Q: What must the D.C. lawyer evaluate before forming the partnership?
A: The committee concluded the D.C. lawyer must assess, case by case, the general similarity of the foreign lawyer's education and training and the compatibility of the professional-conduct and discipline standards that govern the foreign lawyer.
Q: How must the firm's letterhead handle a foreign partner?
A: Under Rule 7.5(b), the committee concluded the letterhead must identify the jurisdictional limitations of lawyers not licensed where the office is located, so the foreign lawyer's licensure must be shown.
Q: Does the partnership raise unauthorized-practice concerns?
A: Yes. The committee concluded the D.C. lawyer must not assist the foreign lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law in the District, under Rule 5.5(b) and D.C. App. R. 49.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 5.1 (responsibilities of partners and supervisory lawyers to ensure firm lawyers conform to the rules), Rule 5.5 (assisting the unauthorized practice of law), and Rule 7.5(b) and (d) (firm names and letterhead, and not implying a partnership that does not exist), against the backdrop of D.C. App. R. 49 on unauthorized practice. It assumed the arrangement otherwise complied with D.C., Swedish, and U.K. law.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 5.1 / Model Rule 5.1 (partner and supervisory responsibilities)
- D.C. RPC 5.5(b) / Model Rule 5.5 (assisting unauthorized practice)
- D.C. RPC 7.5(b), (d) / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names, letterhead, implying a partnership)
Other opinions cited:
- New York State Bar Op. 658 (1997)
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 01-423: Forming Partnerships With Foreign Lawyers
- DC Ethics Op. 338: Of Counsel and a Partner's Name in Another Firm
- 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-278
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1998 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.