Can a renamed law firm list a former firm name on its letterhead, and claim a prior affiliation with the firm its founders left years earlier?

Plain-English summary

Four lawyers withdrew from an original firm's City B office in 1976 and formed a new firm, "L, M, N & O." In January 1989 that firm reorganized and renamed itself "L, X, Y & Z, P.C." About three years before the inquiry, the original firm (still operating under a name it had used for over thirty years) opened its own office in City B. The new firm asked whether it could state on its letterhead that it was formerly known as "L, M, N & O," and whether it could state that it had previously been affiliated with the original firm.

On the first question, the committee concluded it is not improper for a firm to state its own former name (with the dates it was used), citing Opinion 739; the new firm may include the "L, M, N & O" name by which it was known after the 1976 withdrawal. On the second, the committee concluded a claim of prior affiliation with the original firm would be improper. It explained that a firm may continue or invoke a predecessor only where it is a bona fide successor in a continuing line of succession (Opinion 709), and that a lawyer may not claim to be the successor of another with whom he was merely associated rather than a partner (Opinion 84-10; ABA Informal Opinion 1174).

Here the two firms always were and remain separate entities; the withdrawing lawyers organized a new, separate firm in 1976, so there was no continuing line of succession between the original firm and either "L, M, N & O" or the newly named "L, X, Y & Z, P.C." Although some individual lawyers had been affiliated with the original firm before 1976, the new firm itself never was; stating otherwise would be misleading, contrary to former Rule 2-101 and the committee's prior opinions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in October 1989, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 1990 (and later 2010) Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rules 7.1 and 7.5), 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 renamed firm list its own former name on its letterhead?

A: The opinion concluded yes; it is not improper to state the firm's former name, with the dates it was used.

Q: Can a firm claim a prior affiliation with another, separate firm its lawyers once belonged to?

A: Per the opinion, no, where there was no continuing line of succession; the two firms were always separate, so claiming affiliation would be misleading under former Rule 2-101.

Q: What is the test for invoking a predecessor firm's name?

A: The opinion concluded the firm must be a bona fide successor in a continuing line of succession; a lawyer may not claim to be a successor of a firm with which he was merely associated rather than a partner.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rule 2-101 (false or misleading communications) and former Rule 2-102(b) (predecessor names in a continuing line of succession). The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 (communications about services) and 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois Code Rules 2-101, 2-102(b) (former Code, applied in the opinion)
• Illinois RPC 7.1, 7.5 (2010 equivalents per the Board's affirmation)
• MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services), MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinion Nos. 709, 739, 84-10; ABA Informal Opinion 1174: predecessor-name use and the continuing-line-of-succession requirement

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 90-06: Sharing Office Space With a Nonlawyer Business
• ISBA Ethics Op. 89-05: Profit-Sharing With a Nonlawyer Employee

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/8906