Can a professional association keep the names of deceased former partners in its firm name?

Plain-English summary

A firm had used the name "A, B, C and D" for about 25 years, those being the surnames of its four original partners. Over time, only D remained an active partner; C was alive and listed as of counsel, and the others had retired or died. The firm asked whether, in converting to a professional association, it could adopt the name "A, B, C and D, P.A."

The committee pointed to Canon 33, which in Florida governed the names of both partnerships and professional service corporations and expressly provided that continued use of a deceased or former partner's name is not unethical where permissible by local custom, with care that no imposition or deception is practiced. The committee had previously declined to establish that local custom in its since-withdrawn Opinion 67-3, but assuming the existing partnership name properly included the names of deceased or retired partners under local custom, it saw no reason the Canon's explicit provision could not apply. It found no viable distinction between using such a name in the partnership form and carrying it over to the professional association.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1969, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 law firm keep a deceased partner's name in the firm name?

A: Under this opinion, yes, where local custom permits and no deception results. The committee relied on Canon 33's express provision allowing continued use of a deceased or former partner's name.

Q: Did converting from a partnership to a professional association change the answer?

A: No. The committee saw no viable distinction between carrying the name in the partnership form and using it in the professional association, so long as the underlying use was proper to begin with.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 33, which in Florida addressed the names of both partnerships and professional service corporations. 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]

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 67-3 [since withdrawn]

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-69-20/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-69-20-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 69-20
July 23, 1969
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A professional association may include in its name the names of deceased members of a predecessor partnership that were previously included in the partnership name.
Canon: 33 [See current 4-7.21]
Opinion: 67-3
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
We are told by an inquiring member of The Florida Bar that his firm adopted the name of A, B, C and D approximately 25 years ago, those at that time being the surnames of the four partners of the firm. Through the years, by virtue of retirement and death, only D remains an active partner, although C is alive and is listed as being of counsel to the firm. We are asked whether the firm may not properly in the course of effecting a transition to the status of a professional association adopt the name of "A, B, C and D, P.A."
Canon 33, which in Florida deals not only with the names of partnerships, but also with those of professional service corporations, expressly provides: "The continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner or shareholder when permissible by local custom is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use."
This Committee has previously declined to establish such local custom (see our Opinion 67-3) (since withdrawn), but assuming the name of the partnership as presently existent properly includes the name of deceased or retired partners under applicable local custom, we can see no reason why the effect of the explicit provision of the Canon as above quoted cannot be given in this instance. No viable distinction is created in our minds by virtue of the transition from one status to the other, as compared with the propriety in the first instance.