Can two lawyers who keep separate practices but share some cases hold themselves out to the public as 'Law Associates' on a joint letterhead?

Plain-English summary

Two attorneys proposed to form an informal "association" for the practice of law and to hold themselves out on a joint letterhead captioned "Law Associates." They would keep separate practices in separate towns, sharing some cases based on experience, preference, and location, with fees worked out case by case. They did not intend a formal partnership: they fully accepted liability for each other's negligence (in all cases either handled, not just shared ones), but did not accept liability for each other's business debts, such as rent, equipment, or other credit transactions.

The Commission analyzed the question under Maine Bar Rule 3.9, which permits advertising that is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. Whether "Law Associates" is misleading turned on whether it omits a material fact necessary to keep the statement from being misleading (Rule 3.9(b)(2)), is likely to create an unjustified expectation (Rule 3.9(b)(3)), or contains a representation likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived (Rule 3.9(b)(6)).

Measured by those standards, the Commission found the phrase misleading under the proposed circumstances. The concept of an "association" is itself ambiguous, implying no particular degree of common enterprise. The public would probably infer the attorneys share cases, consult on a continuing basis, and otherwise cooperate, which was true of the planned arrangement; but some members of the public might also infer that the attorneys are partners, which was false because they did not accept full partnership liability. The Commission concluded that using "law associates" on a letterhead to describe this particular relationship would violate the cited subsections of Rule 3.9(b).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1980, before Maine's replacement of the former Maine Bar Rules with the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (effective August 1, 2009). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis, and lawyer-advertising and firm-name rules in particular were reshaped by later United States Supreme Court decisions. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can lawyers who only share some cases call themselves "Law Associates" on a joint letterhead?

A: The opinion concluded no, not for this arrangement. The label was found misleading under Rule 3.9(b) because the public might infer a full partnership that did not exist.

Q: Why was the term misleading if the lawyers really did cooperate?

A: The opinion concluded that while some inferences (shared cases, ongoing consultation) were true, the term "association" is ambiguous and some of the public would infer a partnership, which was false because the lawyers did not accept full partnership liability.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Maine Bar Rule 3.9(b), which bars advertising that omits a material fact, is likely to create an unjustified expectation, or is likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to be deceived, as applied to a firm-style designation on letterhead. It corresponds to Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). The analysis turns on the gap between the loose affiliation actually formed and the partnership the public might infer from "Law Associates."

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• Maine Bar Rule 3.9(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(6)

See also

• Maine Ethics Op. 53: Individual Attorneys as "Associates" But Not Partners
• Maine Ethics Op. 86: Firm Name Including "Of Counsel"
• Maine Ethics Op. 132: Deleting a Suspended Attorney's Name From Firm Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://mebaroverseers.org/attorney_services/opinion.html?id=89486

Original opinion text

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

Issued by the Professional Ethics Commission

Date Issued: October 15, 1980

Question

The Commission has been asked for an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of two attorneys forming an informal "association" with each other for the practice of law and holding themselves out to the public as such on their joint letterhead which would be captioned "Law Associates." The attorneys will continue to have separate practices in separate towns but they intend to share some cases based on their respective experience, preference, and location. Fees are to be worked out on a case by case basis. It is not intended by the attorneys that their relationship be a formal partnership; although they fully accept liability for each other's negligence (not only in shared cases, but in all cases either of them handles), they do not accept liability for each other's debts incurred in the practice of law such as for rent, equipment purchases, or other business credit transactions.

Opinion

Maine Bar Rule 3.9 now controls issues of publicity, advertising, and solicitation by lawyers. Its general approach is to permit any advertising which is not false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive. Whether the expression "Law Associates" is misleading or deceptive depends on whether it omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statement not misleading [Rule 3.9(b)(2)], or is intended or is likely to create an unjustified expectation [Rule 3.9(b)(3)], or contains a representation or implication that is likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived thereby [Rule 3.9(b)(6)].

The Commission believes that the phrase in question, measured by these standards, is misleading under the circumstances proposed. The concept of an association is itself ambiguous, implying no particular degree of common enterprise. The general public will probably infer that the attorneys involved are likely to share cases, consult with each other on a continuing basis, and otherwise cooperate with each other. These inferences would be true with respect to the association planned. Some members of the public, however, may also infer that these attorneys are partners. This inference would be false in that these attorneys do not accept full partnership liability. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the expression "law associates" used on a letterhead to describe this particular relationship would violate those subsections of Rule 3.9(b) cited above.