In Kentucky, may lawyers who are not actually partners practice under a partnership name like 'Jones & Smith'?

Plain-English summary

The opinion answered whether lawyers who are not partners may practice under a partnership name. The Committee concluded the answer was No, and noted the answer had been No for many years, both under the old Code (DR 2-102(C)) and under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Committee reasoned that using a partnership name for lawyers who are not partners is false, deceptive, or misleading advertising under the firm-name and advertising rules (KRPC 7.50(4) and 7.10). It added, in passing, that beyond discipline for those violations, lawyers using such a name may face liability under the doctrine of partnership by estoppel, but that this latter point was a legal question on which the Committee could not opine definitively.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 and predates the Kentucky Supreme Court's substantial 2009 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130). The bar notes substantial revisions to the rules governing advertising, including that Rule 7.10 was renumbered to Rule 7.15, and directs lawyers to the current rules and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could non-partner lawyers practice under a name like "Jones & Smith"?

A: No. The Committee concluded a partnership name for lawyers who are not partners is a misleading firm name prohibited by the rules.

Q: Was this a new rule under the Rules of Professional Conduct?

A: No. Per the opinion, the answer had been No for many years, both under the old Code (DR 2-102(C)) and under the KRPC.

Q: What was the additional risk beyond discipline?

A: The Committee noted, without opining definitively, that lawyers using such a name may face liability under the doctrine of partnership by estoppel, a legal question outside its role.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the Kentucky firm-name rule then numbered KRPC 7.50(4) and the advertising rule then numbered KRPC 7.10 (Model Rules 7.5 on firm names and 7.1 on communications about a lawyer's services), against the predecessor DR 2-102(C). The analysis turns on whether the name is false, deceptive, or misleading.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / KRPC 7.50(4) (firm names and letterhead)
• MR 7.1 / KRPC 7.10 (false, deceptive, or misleading communications)
• DR 2-102(C) (predecessor Code provision)

Other opinions cited:

• KBA E-259 (1982); KBA E-62 (1972)

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-396: Common Firm Names
• KBA Ethics Op. E-388: Advertising That the Lawyer Will Donate a Percentage of Fees to Client-Designated Charities

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-389.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-389
Issued: March 1996

Since the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 1990, the Kentucky Supreme Court has made substantial revisions to rules governing the advertisement of legal services. For example, this opinion refers to Rule 7.10, which was renumbered to Rule 7.15. Lawyers should consult the current version of the rules and comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org), and the Attorneys’ Advertising Commission Regulations, before relying on this opinion.

Question:

Is it ethical for lawyers to practice under a partnership name - e.g. “Jones & Smith” - if they are not, in fact partners?

Answer:

No.

References:

KRPC 7.50(4); DR 2-102(C); KBA E-259 (1982); KBA E-62 (1972); ABA/BNA Law.Man.Prof.Con. 91:206; Charles Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics 882-883 (1986) OPINION

The cited reference make it clear that the answer to the question has been “No” for many years now, was “No” under the Code, and is “No” under the KRPC. We also note in passing that in addition to being disciplined for violations of KRsPC 7.50(4) and 7.10 (for use of “false, deceptive or misleading” advertising) lawyers may face liability under the doctrine of “partnership by estoppel.” However, the latter question is a legal question upon which the Committee cannot opine definitively.
____
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.