Can a firm keep a partner's name in the firm name after he becomes a judge, and may a long-deceased predecessor's name stay on the letterhead?

Plain-English summary

A member had practiced since 1952 with partner A under the firm name A & B. Earlier, A had practiced with his father, A, Senior, under the name A & A before the father's election to public office; the father's name had been carried on the letterhead with notations showing he was deceased, but it was not part of the firm name. A had now been appointed to the bench and the partnership had dissolved. The inquiry asked whether the surviving lawyer could continue practicing under the firm name A & B.

The committee was unanimous that continuing under that name would be improper. Under Canon 33, when a member of a firm becomes a judge and is precluded from practice, his name should not be continued in the firm name, so A's name had to be eliminated. On the deceased predecessor, a majority found it would be proper to list A, Senior, on the new firm's letterhead with a designation showing he was deceased, and to show continuity through the years by listing the successive firm names with dates. But because neither the inquiring lawyer nor any present member had been a partner of A, Senior, who had been dead over 18 years, the committee found insufficient continuity to justify using that name in the firm name itself. The committee cited Drinker, Legal Ethics, page 206 and following, for the principle that firm names must be factual and not misleading, and noted that local custom would not justify the proposed name.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which reshaped the law governing lawyer advertising. The opinion applied former Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; firm names and letterhead are now addressed by Rule 4-7.21 (the Bar's own note points to Rule 4-7.21(e) and Comment, and to the advertising rules at Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.5). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm keep a partner's name in the firm name after he becomes a judge?

A: No. The committee held that under Canon 33, a partner who becomes a judge and is precluded from practice must be removed from the firm name.

Q: Can a deceased predecessor's name stay on the firm letterhead?

A: A majority said yes, with a designation showing he is deceased, but only where there is sufficient continuity or connection between that lawyer and the present firm. Here, with no present member having been his partner and 18 years having passed, the committee found that continuity lacking for use in the firm name.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 33 (partnerships and firm names) of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Firm names and letterhead are now governed by Rule 4-7.21 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 7.5); the Bar's annotation directs the reader to Rule 4-7.21(e) and its Comment. The analysis turns on two principles: a judge precluded from practice cannot remain in the firm name, and a firm name must be factual and not misleading, so a predecessor's name requires genuine continuity.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 33 [Canons of Professional Ethics; partnerships and firm names; see current Rule 4-7.21(e) and Comment]

Other authorities:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 206 et seq.

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 67-8: Former Partner Now a Judge on Letterhead
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-39: Adding a Partner Name With a Deceased Partner's Name
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-55: Adding a Name to a Firm With a Deceased Partner

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-64-20/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-64-20-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 64-20
May 5, 1964
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is improper to use the name of a lawyer who has become a judge in a firm name. Although it is improper to include a deceased partner's name in the firm unless there is sufficient continuity or connection, if such continuity exists his name may be listed on the letterhead with appropriate designation showing he is deceased.
Note: Lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22.
Canon: 33 [See 4-7.21(e) and Comment]
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar states that he has been practicing law since 1952 with A, under the firm name A & B. Prior to that time his partner practiced law with his father, the late A, Senior, before election of the latter to a public office under the name of A & A. The name of A, Senior, was carried on the firm letterhead with appropriate notations to show he was deceased, but that name was not part of the firm name. A has now been appointed to the bench and the lawyers have dissolved their partnership. Our opinion is sought as to the propriety of continuing to practice under the firm name, A & B.
It is the unanimous opinion of this Committee that it would be improper under the circumstances to continue practice under such name. Canon 33 provides that when a member of a firm becomes a judge, and is precluded from the practice of law, his name should not be continued in the firm name. [See Rule 4-7.21(e)] Thus, it is necessary to eliminate the name of A from the firm name. Since neither the inquiring lawyer nor any present member of his firm was a partner of A, Senior, and since the latter has been dead over 18 years, the Committee feels there is not sufficient continuity or connection between him and the present firm to justify the use of the name in the firm.
A majority of the Committee is of the opinion that it would be proper to continue to list the name of A, Senior, on the letterhead of the new firm, with appropriate designation showing he is deceased. Further, it would appear proper, if he so elects, to show continuity through the years by stating the firm name. For example:
A, Senior (dates)
A & A (dates)
A & B (dates)
The problem with which he is concerned is discussed at length in Drinker, Legal Ethics, page 206 et seq. Stress there is made upon the fact that firm names must be factual and not misleading. Mention is also made that a deceased partner's name may be continued in a firm name if justified by local custom. We do not know if there is an established custom in the area in question, but the Committee feels that, if so, the custom would not justify the firm name now proposed.