ISBA 1981

Can a lawyer advertise practice in a field even though his name closely resembles a better-known lawyer in the same field?

Short answer: The opinion concluded a lawyer may advertise availability in a field even though his name is confusingly similar to a more experienced lawyer in the same field, so long as the advertising is not calculated to pass him off as the other lawyer.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1981. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1981
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A sole practitioner with a national immigration-law reputation (called "Pickle") faced a newly admitted lawyer (called "Pickel") who opened a Chicago office as "Pickel and Flash" and ran three newspaper advertisements stating the firm handled immigration matters. Because the two surnames are pronounced the same and spelled similarly, the concern was that business would be diverted from the older, more experienced lawyer to the younger one.

The committee found the three advertisements complied with Rule 2-101(a), which permits an advertisement to describe the types of legal matters a lawyer will accept. It then considered Rule 2-101(b), which bars advertisements that contain false or misleading statements or otherwise operate to deceive. The committee concluded the advertisements did not violate that prohibition. There would be a violation, the committee said, if the advertisements were calculated to "pass off" the advertising lawyer as the other lawyer, conduct that would also amount to the tort of unfair competition, but nothing in the advertisements showed that vice.

The committee reasoned that the younger lawyer has as much right to his own name and to practice immigration law as the older lawyer. It acknowledged some members of the public might be misled by the similarity, but observed that this possibility exists in countless cases and that a rule of professional conduct cannot eliminate it and still apply fairly to the lawyers involved.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 2010 Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in July 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a) with its Comment [1]), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. 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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise in a field where his name resembles a well-known lawyer's name?

A: The opinion concluded yes; the younger lawyer has as much right to his own name and to the field as the established lawyer, so long as the advertising is not calculated to pass him off as the other lawyer.

Q: When would similar-name advertising cross the line?

A: Per the opinion, it would violate Rule 2-101(b) (and constitute the tort of unfair competition) if the advertisements were calculated to "pass off" the advertising lawyer as the other, better-known lawyer.

Q: Does the chance that some readers are confused make the ads improper?

A: The committee said no; some public confusion from name similarity is possible in countless cases, and a conduct rule cannot eliminate that and still treat the lawyers fairly.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 2-101(a) (permitted advertising content) and Rule 2-101(b) (no false, misleading, or deceptive advertising). The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and 7.5(a) (firm names and designations), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Illinois Code Rule 2-101(a), (b) (applied in the opinion)
  • Illinois RPC 7.1, 7.5(a) (2010 equivalents per the Board's affirmation)
  • MR 7.1 (communications about services); MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1981 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.