Can a lawyer with an associate use the heading 'Law Offices of [name]' on stationery and pleadings?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer was employed as an associate of another Florida lawyer. The stationery carried the heading "Law Offices of John Doe," with the names of the employer and the associate listed to the side, and the firm used the style "Law Offices of John Doe" in its pleadings and in the signature block of its letters. The inquirer asked whether any impropriety existed in this usage.

The committee noted that Canon 33 required that no false or misleading firm name be used. It found that, on its face, the usage described appeared to be neither false nor misleading, and that, absent any other circumstances not known to the committee, no impropriety was involved.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1968, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canon 33 on firm names. Firm names and letterhead are now governed by Rule 4-7.21. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 solo lawyer with an associate use "Law Offices of [name]"?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee found the heading neither false nor misleading on its face and saw no impropriety, absent other circumstances unknown to it.

Q: What was the governing standard?

A: Canon 33's requirement that a firm name not be false or misleading. The committee measured the "Law Offices of" usage against that standard and found it acceptable.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 33, which required that firm names not be false or misleading. Firm names and letterhead are now governed by Rule 4-7.21 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; the Model Rule analogue is Rule 7.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 33 [Code of Professional Responsibility; firm names now in Rule 4-7.21]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 69-20: Deceased Partner Names in PA Name
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 68-58: Naming a Professional Association

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-68-36/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-68-36-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 68-36
August 22, 1968
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
There is no impropriety in the use of the appellation "law offices of ____" by a member of The Florida Bar and his associate on the firm stationery, in pleadings, and in the signatory element of letters.
Canon: 33 [See current 4-7.21]
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
The inquiring member of The Florida Bar advises that he is employed as an associate of another member of The Florida Bar, whom we shall saddle with the timeless appellation John Doe. The stationery utilized by these attorneys contains the heading, "Law Offices of John Doe," listing to the side the names of the employer and the associate. The firm in its pleadings and in the signatory element of letters utilizes the style, "Law Offices of John Doe."
We are asked whether any impropriety exists in this usage. Canon 33 admonishes that in the selection and use of firm names no false or misleading names should be utilized. On its face, the usage of the name described would appear to be neither false nor misleading, and in the absence of any other circumstances not known to us, we find no impropriety involved.