Can lawyers in a two-county firm be listed in the phone directory for both counties?

Plain-English summary

A Florida firm maintained offices in two counties. Four lawyers who resided and primarily worked from the first county's offices frequently used the firm's second-county office for matters they handled there. They asked whether they could properly be listed (with their bar designations) in the classified directory for the second county.

The committee concluded they could. Citing DR 2-102(A)(5), which permitted classified listings in areas where a lawyer resides, has an office, or where a significant part of his clientele resides, and its combined Opinions 74-14, 74-19, and 74-23 (since withdrawn), the committee stressed the need for a good-faith effort in determining the boundaries of the "area." It clarified it was not deciding that all firm lawyers had offices in both counties merely because the firm did; rather, it interpreted the lawyers' frequent presence in the second-county office to mean a substantial number of their clients resided there, and based its conclusion on that interpretation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1977, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced; lawyer advertising rules now appear in Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current advertising rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a two-county firm's lawyers be listed in the phone directory for both counties?

A: The opinion concluded yes, if they do legal work for a substantial number of clients in each county.

Q: Does having a firm office in a county automatically give every firm lawyer an "office" there for listing purposes?

A: No. The opinion expressly declined to decide that, and rested instead on its finding that a substantial number of the four lawyers' clients resided in the second county.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-102(A)(5) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, governing classified directory listings by area. That subject corresponds to Model Rule 7.2 (communications and advertising) and Model Rule 7.1 (no misleading communications); the current Florida advertising rules appear at Rule 4-7.12 and related provisions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as cited, former Code):

• CPR DR 2-102(A)(5) (classified directory listings by area)

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Ethics Opinions 74-14, 74-19, 74-23 (combined; since withdrawn)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 76-8: Who Belongs on the Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-76-6/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-76-6-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 76-6
February 15, 1977
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Members of a Florida law firm that has offices in two counties may be listed in the classified telephone directory for both counties if they do legal work for a substantial number of clients in each county.
Note: Lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22.
CPR: DR 2-102(A)(5)
Opinions: 74-14, 74-19, 74-23
Chairman Sullivan stated the opinion of the committee:
A Florida law firm maintains offices in two counties. Four of the lawyers in the firm who reside and primarily work out of the firm's offices in the first county frequently use the firm's office in the second county in connection with legal matters they handle in that county.
Those four lawyers ask whether they may properly be listed in the classified section of the telephone directory for the second county. The listings would include their designations in accordance with the standards established by The Florida Bar.
The Committee is of the opinion that they may properly do so. In combined Opinions 74-14, 74-19 and 74-23 [all since withdrawn], we referred to DR 2-102(A)(5), which permits listings in classified directories in areas in which a lawyer resides [or] has an office or in which a significant part of his clientele resides. In those opinions, we were faced with the propriety of a lawyer having a classified listing in an area where he did not maintain an office but where a substantial part of his clientele resided. We concluded that it was permissible but emphasized the need for lawyers to make a good faith effort in determining the boundaries of the "area" or "areas."
In reaching the conclusion we do here, we are not deciding that because the law firm has offices in two counties all the lawyers in the firm have offices in the two counties within the meaning of DR 2-102(A)(5).
We interpret the statement that the four lawyers are frequently in the office in the second county in connection with legal matters they handle in that county to mean that a substantial number of the firm's clients for whom those four lawyers handle legal matters reside in the second county, and it is upon that interpretation that we base our conclusion.