When a non-law company stops sharing office space with a law firm, does the company's name have to come off the law firm's window?

Plain-English summary

A law firm had for years subleased an office to a firm representing mutual fund companies. The two had maintained separate telephone lines connected to the law firm's phone system and, until recently, used a common entrance and waiting room. Several months before the inquiry, the law firm subleased the company a different office with a separate entrance, so the company no longer shared office space with the firm, though the firm still provided an answering service on the company's line. The firm said it had never undertaken to represent any client doing business with the mutual fund companies and had never recommended their service. On the front window of the law firm's reception room, separated from the firm's own lettered name, was the name of the mutual fund company, and the firm asked whether that sign violated the Canons of Ethics.

The committee referred to its prior discussions of the steps required when a lawyer or firm shares office space with non-lawyers, citing Florida Opinions 65-74 (since withdrawn), involving a certified public accountant, and 69-12 (since withdrawn), involving "consulting actuaries." Because the law firm no longer shared office space with the lay agency, the committee concluded that the name of the mutual fund company should be removed from the front window of the law firm's reception room.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canons of Professional Ethics and Code of Professional Responsibility, which have since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rule 4-7.21 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the lay company's name have to come off the firm's window?

A: Under this opinion, yes. Because the law firm no longer shared office space with the company, the committee concluded that the company's name should be removed from the front window of the firm's reception room.

Q: Did it matter that the firm had never represented the company's customers or recommended its services?

A: The opinion noted those facts but rested its conclusion on the change in circumstances: the company had moved to a separate office, so it no longer shared space with the firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed signage that associated a law firm with a non-law business and the conditions for sharing office space with non-lawyers. In current Florida practice the regulation of firm names, signs, and letterheads is in Rule 4-7.21, and the duty to maintain professional independence from non-lawyers maps to Model Rule 5.4; the Model Rule analogues here are Rules 7.5 and 5.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR (Code of Professional Responsibility) and the former Canons of Ethics generally; no specific disciplinary rule cited

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinions 65-74 (since withdrawn), 69-12 (since withdrawn)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-18: A Partner on Government Leave and the Firm Name
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 86-4: Listing Nonlawyer Employees on Letterhead and Cards
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 73-11: Office Letterhead for a Charity Appeal

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-71-66/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-71-66-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 71-66
February 18, 1972
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
When a law firm ceases to share office space with a company not engaged in the practice of law, the name of the company should be removed from law firm window.
Opinions: 65-74, 69-12
Chairman Clarkson stated the opinion of the committee:
The Committee has received the inquiry which follows:
For a number of years our firm has subleased an office to a firm representing mutual fund companies. They have maintained separate telephone lines connected to our office phone system and until recently used a common entrance and waiting room.
Several months ago we subleased to this same company another office with a separate entrance. While we continue to provide an answering service on the company line, the company no longer shares office space with this firm. At no time have we ever undertaken to represent any client doing business with the mutual companies, nor have we recommended their service.
On the front window of our office reception room, separated from the lettered name of this firm is the name of the mutual fund company. The question posed is whether this sign is in violation of the Canons of Ethics.
We have previously discussed the distinctive steps which must be taken when a lawyer or law firm shares office space with non-lawyers. See Florida Opinion 65-74 [since withdrawn] (certified public accountant) and 69-12 [since withdrawn] ("consulting actuaries").
In this instance the law firm no longer shares office space with the lay agency. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that the name of the mutual fund company should be removed from the front window of the law firm's reception room.