Can a law firm operate a 'legal clinic' under a geographic trade name that does not include any firm member's name?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a law firm may form a "legal clinic" whose name includes no firm member's name, using "Louisville Law Clinic" as the example, and answered no. It restated EC 2-11's list of permissible practice names: a lawyer in private practice should practice only under his own name, the name of the employing lawyer, a partnership name consisting of the names of one or more lawyers in the partnership, or the name of a professional legal corporation clearly designated as such. Under DR 2-102(B), a lawyer in private practice is prohibited from practicing under a trade name, any misleading name, or a firm name containing names other than those of lawyers in the firm, except that a professional corporation or association may use symbols such as "P.C." to indicate its nature; even a professional corporation's name must not be a trade name or be misleading.

Applying those rules, the committee found "The Louisville Law Clinic" objectionable on two counts. It is essentially a trade name that "could mislead laymen concerning the identity, responsibility, and status of those practicing thereunder" (EC 2-11). And the name might mislead the public into believing the clinic is associated with or a service of the city of Louisville; given the past use by some legal-aid offices of the "legal clinic" designation, some laypersons would likely be confused by a clinic name tied to a political or geographic area. The committee concluded that forming a legal clinic does not in any way exempt a partnership or firm from the usual limitations on the names and designations of law firms.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979 under Kentucky's former Code of Professional Responsibility (in effect 1971 to 1990), before the Kentucky Bar Association's 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. The opinion's flat ban on law-firm trade names predates later developments; many jurisdictions have since relaxed the prohibition on trade names, subject to a rule against misleading names. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm run a "legal clinic" under a name with no lawyer's name in it?

A: No, under this opinion. The committee held such a name is a trade name barred by DR 2-102(B) and EC 2-11, which require a firm name to consist of the lawyers' own names.

Q: Why was the geographic label "Louisville Law Clinic" a problem?

A: The committee said it could mislead the public into thinking the clinic was associated with or a service of the city of Louisville, compounded by past legal-aid use of the "legal clinic" label.

Q: Does calling the practice a "clinic" change the firm-name rules?

A: No. The committee said forming a legal clinic does not exempt a partnership or firm from the usual limitations on firm names and designations.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the former Code's firm-name rules, DR 2-102(B) (no trade names or misleading names) and EC 2-11 (permissible practice names), to a law clinic operating under a geographic label. The modern analogs are Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads, as it stood) and Model Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services); the ABA later amended its rules to permit trade names that are not misleading.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102(B) (trade and misleading names) and EC 2-11 (permissible firm names); modern analogs Model Rule 7.5 and Model Rule 7.1

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 318 (1967)

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

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-219.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-219
Issued: July 1979

This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current version of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org), especially Rules 7.01-7.50 and the Attorneys’ Advertising Commission Regulations, before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May a law firm form a “legal clinic” without a member of the law firm’s name appearing in the clinic (i.e., Louisville Law Clinic)?

Answer:

No.

References:

DR 2-102(B); EC 2-11; ABA Formal Opinion 318 (1967)
OPINION

An attorney engaged in private practice should practice only under: (1) his own name, (2) the name of the lawyer employing him, (3) a partnership name consisting of the name of one or more lawyers in the partnership or (4) in the name of a professional legal corporation which is clearly designated as such (EC 2-11). A lawyer in private practice is prohibited from practicing under a trade name, any name that is misleading, or a firm name containing names other than those of lawyers in the firm, except that the name of a professional corporation or association may contain symbols such as “P.C.” to indicate the nature of the organization (DR 2-102(B)). Even if a law firm is organized as a professional corporation, the name of the corporation must not be in the nature of a trade name or be a name which would be misleading.
A name of a law firm or law clinic such as “The Louisville Law Clinic” would, therefore, be objectionable on two counts. It is essentially the use of a trade name which “could mislead laymen concerning the identity, responsibility, and status of those practicing thereunder” EC 2-11). In addition, the name “Louisville Law Clinic” might mislead laymen to believe that the law clinic was in some way associated with or a service of the city of Louisville. Because of the widespread use, in some areas in the past by legal aid offices, of the designation “legal clinic,” some laymen will undoubtedly be confused by the name of a legal clinic associated with a political or geographic area.
The formation of a legal clinic does not in any way exempt a partnership or law firm from adhering to the usual limitations concerning the names and designations of law firms.

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.