Can a Florida partnership list an out-of-state office on its letterhead when that office belongs to only one partner, not the partnership?

Plain-English summary

A Florida lawyer who was also admitted in another jurisdiction had long maintained a Florida office while periodically returning to the other jurisdiction to represent clients there. He proposed to form a partnership with offices in his Florida community while continuing an association with an attorney in the other jurisdiction. He asked whether the new partnership stationery could list the out-of-state office, which would not be a second office of the (exclusively Florida) partnership but an office of the inquirer maintained on an associate, not partnership, basis with the other attorney.

The committee concluded that it would not be proper for the partnership stationery to reflect the out-of-state office, because that office was not in fact an office of the partnership. It added that the inquiring attorney could properly use individual stationery listing both offices, citing its (later withdrawn) Opinion 65-35.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in March 1967, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canon 33 on partnership and firm names. Firm names and letterheads are now addressed by Rule 4-7.21 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and statements about a lawyer's offices and jurisdictions by Rule 4-7.13 (deceptive or inherently misleading communications) (Model Rule 7.1). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. The cited Opinion 65-35 has since been withdrawn.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm's letterhead list an office that really belongs to just one partner?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee said the partnership stationery could not list the out-of-state office because it was not in fact an office of the partnership.

Q: Could the individual partner still advertise both offices?

A: Yes. The committee said the inquiring attorney could properly use his own individual stationery listing both offices.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 33, which governed partnership and firm names and letterheads. Those subjects are now addressed by Rule 4-7.21 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (firm names and letterheads), with the prohibition on misleading communications about a lawyer's services at Rule 4-7.13; the Model Rule analogue is Rule 7.1.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 33 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-7.13 and 4-7.21]

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 65-35 (since withdrawn)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 67-8: Former Partner Now a Judge on the Letterhead
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 70-55: Interstate Partnership Letterhead and Jurisdictional Limits

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-67-2/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-67-2-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 67-2
March 31, 1967
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A partnership of Florida lawyers may not list an office in another jurisdiction on the letterhead of the partnership when the office is not that of the partnership, but only of one partner who maintains an association with another attorney in that jurisdiction.
Note: Lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22. See, Rules 4-7.13 and 4-7.21.
Canon: 33
Opinion: 65-35
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
An inquiring member of The Florida Bar is also a member of the bar of another jurisdiction. For some years he has maintained an office in Florida, but has also continued to return periodically to the other jurisdiction to represent clients there. He now proposes to form a partnership with offices in his community in Florida, but to continue an association with an attorney maintaining offices in the other jurisdiction. He inquires as to whether it will be permissible on the new partnership stationery to list the existence of the office in the other jurisdiction. Such office would not be a second office of the partnership (which is exclusively a Florida partnership), but would be an office of the inquirer maintained on an associate (but not partnership) basis with the attorney in the other jurisdiction.
In our judgment it would not be proper for the partnership stationery to reflect the existence of the office in the other jurisdiction because in fact such office is not an office of the partnership. It, of course, would be entirely proper for the inquiring attorney to also utilize individual stationery listing both offices, this being the holding of our Opinion 65-35 (since withdrawn).