Can a Florida law firm use the word 'Associates' in its firm name?

Plain-English summary

For years the committee had issued opinions finding that using "Associates" in a firm name (for example, "John Doe & Associates") was potentially misleading as to the identity, responsibility, or status of the lawyers practicing under the name. The opinion identifies those prior opinions as 66-34, 66-34 Supp., 76-10, 76-17, 76-22, and 81-4.

The opinion explains that the Florida Supreme Court later held, in The Florida Bar v. Fetterman, 439 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1983), that a firm name including "Associates" is not inherently misleading. The Court defined "associate" narrowly as a salaried lawyer-employee who is not a partner, excluding nonlawyer employees, and held the term permissible as long as the employer lawyer's name is included in the firm name and that lawyer in fact employs other lawyers to assist in the practice. If the named lawyer stops employing other lawyers, the opinion notes, the term must be removed.

On that basis the committee withdrew opinions 66-34, 66-34 Supp., 76-10, 76-17, 76-22, and 81-4, and directed lawyers who wish to use "Associates" to be guided by Fetterman.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does Florida prohibit "Associates" in a firm name?

A: No. The opinion withdrew the committee's earlier disapprovals and adopted the Fetterman standard, under which the term is permissible where the named lawyer in fact employs other lawyers.

Q: What did the opinion say a firm must do to use "Associates"?

A: Per the opinion's reading of Fetterman, the employer lawyer's name must be included in the firm name, and that lawyer must actually employ other lawyers; if the firm stops employing other lawyers, "Associates" must be removed.

Q: Does "associate" include nonlawyer staff?

A: No. The opinion states the Court defined "associate" narrowly as a salaried lawyer-employee who is not a partner, and that the definition excludes nonlawyer employees.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addresses firm-name questions governed at the time by the disciplinary rules on communications about a lawyer's services (the predecessors to current Rule 4-7.21 on firm names and letterhead; Model Rule 7.5) and the general bar on false or misleading communications (Model Rule 7.1). The committee resolved the question by deferring to the Florida Supreme Court's Fetterman decision rather than by independent rule analysis.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Fla. Rule 4-7.21 (firm names and letterhead) / Model Rule 7.5
• Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)

Cases:

• The Florida Bar v. Fetterman, 439 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1983), permitting "Associates" in a firm name where not operatively misleading

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Opinions 66-34, 66-34 Supp., 76-10, 76-17, 76-22, 81-4 (all withdrawn by this opinion)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 86-4: Nonlawyer Employees on Letterhead
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 86-7: Withdrawal of Obsolete Advertising Opinions
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 88-2: 'Juris Doctor' on Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-86-1/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-86-1-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 86-1
April 1, 1986
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

Committee opinions disapproving use of the term "Associates" in the name of a law firm are withdrawn in light of the Florida Supreme Court decision permitting such use.

Case: The Florida Bar v. Fetterman, 439 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1983).
RPC: [See current 4-7.21]

Over the years this Committee issued numerous opinions finding that use of the term "Associates" in a law firm name (e.g., "John Doe & Associates") was improper. See Opinions 66-34, 66-34 Supp., 76-10, 76-17, 76-22 and 81-4. The rationale for these opinions was that such a firm name was potentially misleading as to the identity, responsibility or status of the lawyers practicing under the name.

Subsequent to the latest of these opinions, the Florida Supreme Court held that a firm name including the term "Associates" was not inherently misleading. The Florida Bar v. Fetterman, 439 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1983). In Fetterman the Court provided guidelines for determining whether a particular use of "Associates" would be operatively misleading.

The Court defined "associate" narrowly to mean "a salaried lawyer-employee who is not a partner of the firm" and to exclude nonlawyer employees of the firm. The Court indicated that as long as the name of the employer lawyer is included in the firm name and the named lawyer does in fact employ other lawyers to assist him in his practice, a firm name including the term "Associates" is permissible. The employer lawyer's name must be included in the firm name so that the general public will be apprised of that lawyer's position of responsibility with respect to the firm's obligations and duties to its clients. If the named lawyer should cease to employ other lawyers to assist him in the practice of law, the term "Associates" must be removed from the firm name.

In light of Fetterman the Committee withdraws opinions 66-34, 66-34 Supp., 76-10, 76-17, 76-22 and 81-4. Lawyers who wish to use the term "Associates" in their firm name are to be guided by Fetterman.