Can a Kentucky lawyer keep a branch office in another county, and what makes it a bona fide office?

Plain-English summary

A bar association asked the committee about an influx of branch offices opened by attorneys whose principal offices were in other counties. The arrangements ranged from a fully staffed branch with a full-time secretary and attorney, to a branch with part-time staff and a part-time attorney, to an office with only a telephone answered by an answering service and no regularly assigned attorney. The committee answered that branch offices in another county are permissible under conditions.

The committee framed the issue under Canon 27, then DR 2-102, as interpreted by ABA Formal Opinion 249, which required that an attorney not use an office address in a law list unless it is a bona fide office. Whether an office is "bona fide" depends on the facts; helpful but non-exclusive factors included whether the attorney held a lease there, whether a telephone and the attorney's name on the building directory existed, and whether someone was present to transact business. The committee also drew on ABA Informal Opinion 187, which said no canon confines a lawyer to one office and that a lawyer or firm may maintain a bona fide branch office for the convenience of clients if someone is there to make and keep appointments.

Applying these authorities, the committee concluded that a branch office outside the county of the home office is proper if it is a bona fide office open for legal business during specified hours, with secretarial personnel present to take calls and arrange appointments, and an attorney available to conduct business as circumstances require. It expressly declined to require the constant presence of an attorney, noting that such a requirement would prejudice small firms and solo practitioners, but it held that qualified personnel should be available whenever the office is open. The use of an answering service, without more, fails to meet that standard.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1974 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. Subsequent rule amendments or 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a Kentucky lawyer keep an office in a county other than where the principal office is?

A: Yes. The committee held there is nothing improper in maintaining a branch office outside the county of the home office, provided it is a bona fide office.

Q: What makes a branch office "bona fide"?

A: The committee held it must be open for legal business during specified hours, with secretarial personnel present to take calls and arrange appointments, and an attorney available to conduct business as circumstances require.

Q: Does an attorney have to be physically present at the branch at all times?

A: No. The committee declined to require an attorney's constant presence, noting such a requirement would prejudice small firms and solo practitioners; qualified personnel must be available whenever the office is open.

Q: Is an answering service enough to staff a branch office?

A: No. The committee held that the use of an answering service, without more, fails to meet the requirement that qualified personnel be available when the office is open.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27, carried into DR 2-102 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, governing the use of an office address (here, in a law list) and the maintenance of bona fide offices. The modern analogs are Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads, including office identifications) and Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102 (formerly Canon 27; office address and bona fide offices); modern analogs Model Rules 7.5 and 7.1

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 249 (Dec. 19, 1942) (an office address in a law list must be a bona fide office)
• ABA Informal Opinion 187 (a lawyer may maintain a bona fide branch office for client convenience)

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-114: Branch Supervising Partner
• KBA Ethics Op. E-163: Multistate Firm Letterheads
• 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-085.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-85
Issued: March 1974

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), before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May an attorney maintain a branch office in a county other than that in which his principal office is located and, if so, under what circumstances may this be done?

Answer:

Yes.

Reference:

DR 2-102

OPINION

The Committee has received an inquiry from a bar association concerning the propriety of a recent influx of branch offices by attorneys with principal offices in other counties. In some instances the branch office is fully operated and manned by a full-time secretary and attorney. Other branch offices have a full or part-time secretary with a part-time attorney, who spends the remainder of his time in his home office, and in some cases there is only an office with a telephone answered by an answering service or someone other than law office personnel with no regular attorney being assigned to the office.

This question most frequently arises in conjunction with the use of law lists. Canon 27, now DR 2-102, was interpreted in ABA Formal Opinion 249 (dated December 19, 1942) as requiring that an attorney not utilize an office address in a law list unless it is that of a bona fide office. Definition of "bona fide" was noted to depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Among the factors considered helpful in making this determination -- though by no means exclusive -- were whether the attorney maintained a lease where the office was located; whether there was a telephone there as well as the attorney's name on the building directory; and whether someone was present in the office to transact business.

A similar approach was taken in ABA Informal Opinion 187, where the question of branch offices was specifically faced. There the Committee observed:

There is no canon or ruling of the Committee that a practicing lawyer must confine himself to one office in the county where he is admitted to practice. We have ruled that he may maintain an office at his home in addition to his regular office, provided he makes it clear that the home office is at his home. It is also not necessary that a lawyer be at a specific office for any particular number of hours in a day. If circumstances warrant it, a lawyer or firm may properly maintain a branch office for the convenience of clients, provided there is someone in the office to make appointments with clients, which he could keep there. Wherever this Committee has sanctioned the maintenance of branch offices, they have been the bona fide branch offices of the lawyer....

Applying this language to the inquiry before us, the Committee has concluded that there is nothing improper in maintenance of a branch office outside the county of the attorney's home office if it is a bona fide office open for the conduct of legal business during specified business hours, with secretarial personnel present to take calls and arrange appointments, and if an attorney is available to conduct business and interviews at the branch office as circumstances require. This would not mean the constant presence of an attorney in the branch office, as such requirement would operate to the prejudice of small firms and solo practitioners. We do believe, however, that qualified personnel should be available at all times when the office is open to receive clients and calls. The use of an answering service, without more, fails to meet this criteria. Otherwise, the arrangements referred to in the inquiry appear permissible.

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.