In Kentucky, may lawyers who are not in the same firm practice under a common name like 'Able, Baker, Charles & Dilbert, An Association of Attorneys'?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether lawyers in separate firms could use a single name like "Able, Baker, Charles & Dilbert," subtitled "An Association of Attorneys," in their letterhead, brochures, and advertising. The Committee answered no.

It drew on its earlier KBA E-311, which had allowed separate firms to note that they are "affiliated" or "associated" with one another, provided the relationship is close and regular (not merely forwarder-receiver of business), the affiliate is available for consultation, and the firms treat themselves as associates for conflict-of-interest purposes. KBA E-311 had nonetheless rejected a common or umbrella firm name. Agreeing with ABA Formal Op. 94-388, the Committee concluded that using the same firm name when the lawyers are not actually one firm is a misrepresentation, and that a one- or two-word shorthand (such as an "association" subtitle) is not sufficient to cure the misleading nature of the communication.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997 and predates the Kentucky Supreme Court's substantial 2009 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130). The Kentucky Bar Association notes that the rules are amended periodically and that lawyers should consult the current version before relying on this opinion. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 Kentucky lawyers in separate firms share one firm name?

A: Per the opinion, no. The Committee concluded that using a common firm name when the lawyers are not one firm is a misrepresentation prohibited by the firm-name rule.

Q: Did adding "An Association of Attorneys" fix the problem?

A: The opinion concluded it did not. Following ABA Formal Op. 94-388, the Committee found that a short shorthand subtitle does not cure the misleading impression of a single firm.

Q: Could the firms note that they are affiliated or associated?

A: Per the opinion (relying on KBA E-311), yes, if the relationship is close and regular, the affiliate is available for consultation, and the firms treat themselves as associates for conflict purposes, but they still could not use a common firm name.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Kentucky's firm-name rule, KRPC 7.50(4) (the Model Rule 7.5 counterpart), which bars firm names and letterhead that are false or misleading, including a name implying that separate practitioners are a single firm.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / KRPC 7.50(4) (firm names and letterhead; misleading designations)

Other opinions cited:

• KBA E-311 (1986): separate firms may note affiliation but not use a common firm name
• ABA Formal Op. 94-388 (1994); ABA Formal Op. 84-351 (1984): use of a common name by affiliated firms is misleading

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-417: Sharing Office Space With Nonlawyers
• KBA Ethics Op. E-418: Imputed Disqualification in Office-Sharing Arrangements

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-396.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-396
Issued: March 1997

The Rules of Professional Conduct are amended periodically. Lawyers should consult the current version of the rules and comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org), before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May lawyers who are not members of the same law firm use the following name in their letterhead, brochures, and advertising - “Able, Baker, Charles, & Dilbert”
[Subtitle: An Association of Attorneys].

Answer:

No.

References:

KRPC 7.50(4); KBA E-311 (1986); ABA Formal Ops. 94-388 (1994); 84-351 (1984). OPINION

In KBA E-311 the Committee concluded that separate firms could note that they are “affiliated” or “associated” with other separate firms so long as (1) the relationship between the firms is “close and regular, and not merely that of forwarder-receiver of legal business”; (2) the “affiliate” is available to the other firm and its clients for consultation and advice; and (3) the firms recognize that they are “associates” for purposes of conflicts of interest rules. However, KBA E-311 rejected the use of a “common firm name” or “umbrella” firm name. We agree with ABA Formal Op. 94-388 (1994) that there is a misrepresentation when associated or affiliated lawyers all use the same firm name when in fact all the firms or lawyers bearing the same name are not part of the same firm, and that the use of “one- or two-word shorthand expressions is not sufficient” to cure the misleading nature of the communication.
____
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.