Can a Kentucky law firm keep a deceased partner's name in the firm name?

Plain-English summary

A firm of partners A and B, joined over the years by junior partners C, D, E, and F, asked whether it could change its name to "A, B, C, and D" after partner A died. The committee answered that it could. Applying Canon 33, it reasoned that the continued use of a deceased partner's name is not unethical when permitted by local custom, provided care is taken that no deception is practiced.

The committee observed that continuing the name of a deceased partner is a common practice in many areas, noting that in some cities firms are known solely by the names of persons who have long been dead. On the facts presented, it concluded the proposed conduct was not improper provided the date of birth and death of the deceased partner was shown.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1963 under the former Canons of Professional Ethics (in effect in Kentucky from 1946 to 1971) and predates both the 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. Subsequent rule amendments and later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific point mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm keep a deceased partner's name in the firm name?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held that the continued use of a deceased partner's name is not unethical when permitted by local custom and no deception results.

Q: What condition did the committee attach?

A: It approved the proposed name provided the date of birth and death of the deceased partner was shown, so that no deception was practiced.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 33 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics, which addressed partnership and firm names and provided that the continued use of a deceased partner's name is not unethical when permitted by local custom. The modern analog is Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterhead), with Kentucky's counterpart at SCR 3.130(7.5); the current rule's focus is on whether a firm name is false or misleading.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 33 (continued use of a deceased partner's name); modern analog Model Rule 7.5

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-83: Deceased Lawyer's Name in Firm
• KBA Ethics Op. E-86: Magistrate Staying With Firm
• KBA Ethics Op. E-84: Public Office on Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-011.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-11
Issued: May 1963

Question:

May the name of a deceased partner be retained in a firm name where the
date of birth and death of deceased partner is shown?

Answer:

Yes

References:

Canon 33
OPINION

A and B were partners, practicing under the firm name of A and B. For the past
several years, C, D, E and F have been associated with the firm as junior partners. A
recently died.
The surviving partner and the junior partners desire to change the firm name to A,
B, C, and D. They have requested an opinion as to the propriety of it.
Canon 33 provides that the continued use of the name of a deceased partner is not
unethical when permitted by local custom, but care should be taken that no deception is
practiced thereby. It is a common practice in many areas to continue the use of the name of
a deceased partner. In fact, in some cities, firms are known solely by the names of persons
who have long been dead. It is our opinion that the proposed conduct is not improper,
provided date of birth and death of deceased partner is shown.

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the
Kentucky Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530
(or its predecessor rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.