Can a firm keep a former partner's name on its letterhead as a 'successor' or 'formerly' line after that partner becomes a judge?

Plain-English summary

A partnership expected that its long-time senior partner would soon be appointed to a judicial position. The remaining partners asked whether they could place beneath the new firm name a line reading "successors to (former firm name)" or "formerly (former firm name)." The committee acknowledged the partners' legitimate concern that the firm's continuity, a valuable right, not be lost by deleting the first name in the partnership style. It nevertheless concluded that it would not be appropriate to reflect the name of a judge, even in that manner. The committee added that, upon dissolution of the present firm, it would be appropriate to send announcements to those to whom the firm name would be of legitimate interest, reflecting the reason for the dissolution and the new firm name.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in April 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, including the treatment of a name when a member assumes judicial office, are now addressed by Rule 4-7.21 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (see current Rule 4-7.21(e); 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm keep a judge's name on its letterhead with a 'formerly' tag?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee concluded it was not appropriate to reflect the name of a judge on the firm letterhead even in a "successors to" or "formerly" form.

Q: How could the firm communicate the change to clients?

A: The committee said it would be appropriate, upon dissolution of the present firm, to send announcements reflecting the reason for the dissolution and the new firm name to those to whom the firm name would be of legitimate interest.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 33, which governed partnership and firm names. Firm names and letterheads are now addressed by Rule 4-7.21 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, including the provision on names of lawyers holding public office (current Rule 4-7.21(e)); the Model Rule analogue for communications about a lawyer's services is Rule 7.1.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 33 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-7.21(e)]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 67-2: Out-of-State Office on a Partnership Letterhead
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 69-20: Deceased Partner Names in a Professional Association

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-67-8/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-67-8-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 67-8
April 25, 1967
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A partnership may not reflect on its letterhead a reference to a former firm name, which includes the name of a former member of the firm who is now a judge.
Canon: 33 [See current 4-7.21(e)]
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
A partnership composed of members of The Florida Bar apprehends that its long-time senior partner will shortly be appointed to a judicial position. The remaining partners inquire as to whether it would be proper beneath the new firm name to reflect "successors to (former firm name) or formerly (former firm name)."
Although we share the legitimate concern of the remaining partners that the continuity of the firm, a valuable right to every lawyer, not be lost for a period by the deletion of the first name in the partnership style, we nevertheless conclude that it would not be appropriate to reflect the name of a judge even in the manner mentioned. We do believe that it is appropriate, upon the occurrence of the dissolution of the present firm, to send appropriate announcements to those to whom the name of the firm would be of legitimate interest, reflecting the reason for the dissolution and the new firm name.