Can a Florida lawyer be listed on an out-of-state lawyer's letterhead for an interstate referral partnership?

Plain-English summary

A Florida lawyer, not admitted in another state, had a relative practicing in that other state who was not admitted in Florida. They wished to add the Florida lawyer's name and address to the out-of-state lawyer's stationery and firm name to be "associated" for handling referrals and advisory services between the two states. The Florida lawyer was also a member of a separate Florida firm not involved in the proposed interstate relationship.

The committee read the inquiry as describing a partnership, which interstate partnerships are authorized under DR 2-102(D); on that assumption the proposed conduct was acceptable in Florida, with the rule requiring letterheads and listings to make clear the jurisdictional limitations of members not licensed in all listed jurisdictions. The crux, it said, was whether the two were in fact partners. It distinguished Opinion 70-35 (since withdrawn), which held it inappropriate to list a non-Florida-admitted attorney on a Florida firm's letterhead and which involved DR 2-102(C), explaining that the question of interstate partnership did not arise there. The committee cautioned the inquirer to comply with DR 2-102(C) and (B): a lawyer may not hold himself out as having a partnership unless one in fact exists, nor practice under a misleading name. It also observed, without deciding, that it seemed doubtful a lawyer could legitimately be a full member of a Florida firm while also being an active partner of an interstate firm.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility (DR 2-102(C), (D)); the bar's own note states lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22, with firm-name regulation now in Rule 4-7.21, and references The Florida Bar v. Savitt on bona fide interstate partnerships. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 Florida lawyer appear on an out-of-state firm's letterhead?

A: Under this opinion, yes, where a bona fide partnership in fact exists, provided the letterhead makes clear the jurisdictional limits of any lawyer not licensed in all listed states.

Q: What is the central requirement?

A: The opinion says the crux is whether the lawyers are in fact partners; a lawyer may not hold himself out as a partner unless a partnership actually exists, nor practice under a misleading name.

Q: Can the lawyer also remain in a separate Florida firm?

A: The committee did not decide, but observed it seemed doubtful that a lawyer could be a full member of a Florida firm and at the same time an active partner of an interstate firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-102(C) and (D) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, governing firm names, holding out partnerships, and interstate partnerships. The bar's note identifies the current firm-name rule as Rule 4-7.21, within the advertising rules at 4-7.11 through 4-7.22, and multijurisdictional questions are addressed by Rule 4-5.5. The Model Rule analogues are Rules 7.5 (firm names) and 5.5 (multijurisdictional practice).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102(C), (D) [Code of Professional Responsibility; firm-name subject matter now in Rule 4-7.21]

Cases:

• The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1978), on the requirements of a bona fide interstate partnership (per the bar's note).

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 70-35 (since withdrawn): listing a non-Florida-admitted attorney on a Florida firm's letterhead.

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 70-64: A Congressman's Name in the Firm Name
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 71-49: Withdrawing Partner's Name and "Of Counsel"

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-70-55/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-70-55-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 70-55
January 12, 1971
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A Florida attorney's name and address may be added to the stationery of an out-of-state lawyer, the intention being to "associate" the Florida lawyer for purposes of referral between the states. If the Florida lawyer is not licensed to practice in the second state, the letterhead must make clear the jurisdictional limits of the attorney.
[Note: See, The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1978), which discusses the requirements of a bona fide interstate partnership.]
Note: Lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22.
CPR: DR 2-102(C)(D)
Opinion: 70-35
Chairman Massey stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar has a relative who is practicing in another state. The Florida attorney is not admitted in such state, while the relative is not admitted in Florida. It is desired that the Florida attorney's name and address be added to the stationery of the out-of-state lawyer for use in the firm's name, the intention being to be "associated" to the end of handling referrals between the two states and for advisory services. Additionally, the Florida attorney is a member of a Florida firm which may not be involved in the proposed interstate relationship.
Interstate partnerships are authorized under the provisions of CPR DR 2-102(D). The inquiring attorney used the word "associated," but the import of the inquiry indicates there would be a partnership between him and his relative. Based upon this latter assumption, the proposed conduct is acceptable in Florida under DR 2-102(D). The rule, of course, requires that letterheads and listings make clear the jurisdictional limitations of those members and associates not licensed in all listed jurisdictions.
The crux of the issue here is whether the inquirer and his relative are in fact partners. Florida Opinion 70-35 [since withdrawn] held that it is inappropriate to list an attorney on the letterhead of a Florida firm when the attorney is not admitted to practice in Florida. The cited opinion did, in part, involve DR 2-102(C). For clarification of 70-35, it must be explained that the question of interstate partnership did not come into play in that decision.
The Committee would caution the inquirer to be aware of and comply with DR 2-102(C) and DR 2-102(B). Briefly, an attorney shall not hold himself out as having a partnership unless a partnership in fact exists and, further, an attorney shall not practice under a name that is misleading. Assuming there is a bona fide interstate law partnership proposed by the inquirer, there may exist a problem in the Florida lawyer practicing as a partner or member of a Florida law firm, which firm is not involved with the interstate partnership. Although the Committee is not asked nor does it propose to answer this latter matter, it would seem doubtful that an attorney would be able to legitimately be a full member of a Florida law firm and also at the same time an active partner of an interstate law firm.