When a lawyer advertises legal services under a trade name, does a responsible lawyer's name have to appear in the ad?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer with a Michigan professional corporation who advertised under a trade name asked whether the lawyer's name had to appear in the ad. Several prior opinions decided under the former Michigan Code of Professional Responsibility (C-231, CI-343, CI-357, CI-405, CI-454, and CI-852) had required the name of the lawyer responsible for the group to appear in trade-name advertising, and the Committee was asked to revisit the question under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Committee read MRPC 7.5 (allowing a lawyer in private practice to use a trade name that does not imply a connection with a government agency or a public or charitable legal services organization and is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1) together with MRPC 7.1 (permitting public communication that is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive). It noted that the ABA Model Rules include 7.2(d), which requires that any such communication include the name of at least one responsible lawyer, and that Michigan's Representative Assembly had recommended including that provision, but the Michigan Supreme Court deleted proposed MRPC 7.2(d) when it adopted the Rules.
The Committee concluded that the Court's deletion meant that, although requiring a responsible lawyer's name in a trade-name ad is constitutionally permissible, the Court had chosen not to require it. It therefore concluded that, absent a violation of MRPC 7.1 or 7.5, the name of a responsible lawyer is not required when lawyers advertise under a trade name, superseding C-231 and CI-357 and superseding CI-343, CI-405, CI-454, and CI-852 to the extent they were inconsistent.
Currency note
This opinion has since been superseded by MRPC 7.2(d), which (per the bar's note on the opinion) requires advertisements under trade names to identify the name and contact information of at least one lawyer responsible for the content of the advertisement. The opinion was issued in 1989 and interpreted the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct as they then stood, and its conclusion no longer reflects current Michigan rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: At the time of this opinion, did a Michigan trade-name ad have to name a responsible lawyer?
A: No. The opinion concluded that, absent a violation of MRPC 7.1 or 7.5, no responsible lawyer's name was required in trade-name advertising. The opinion has since been superseded by MRPC 7.2(d).
Q: Why did the Committee reach that conclusion?
A: The opinion noted that the ABA Model Rule 7.2(d) name requirement had been recommended for Michigan but was deleted by the Michigan Supreme Court when it adopted the Rules, which the Committee read as the Court's choice not to require it.
Q: What is the rule now?
A: According to the bar's note on the opinion, MRPC 7.2(d) now requires trade-name advertisements to identify the name and contact information of at least one lawyer responsible for the content, so the opinion's conclusion no longer reflects current Michigan law.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted MRPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and trade names) and MRPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services). At the time, Michigan had declined to adopt the ABA's Model Rule 7.2(d) responsible-lawyer-name requirement; Michigan has since adopted a version of that requirement.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.5 / MRPC 7.5 (firm names and trade names)
- MR 7.1 / MRPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
- MR 7.2 / MRPC 7.2(d) (responsible-lawyer-name requirement; adopted in Michigan after this opinion)
Other opinions cited:
- C-231, CI-357: superseded by this opinion
- CI-343, CI-405, CI-454, CI-852: superseded to the extent inconsistent with this opinion
See also
Source
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Note: This opinion has been superseded by MRPC 7.2(d), which requires advertisements under trade names to "identify the name and contact information of at least one lawyer responsible for the content of the advertisement."
RI-16
May 18, 1989
SYLLABUS
As long as the advertising is not false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading, a lawyer's name need not be included in advertisements of legal services under a trade name.
References: MRPC 7.1, 7.5. C-231 and CI-357 are superseded; CI-343, CI-405, CI-454, and CI-852 are superseded to the extent inconsistent with this opinion.
TEXT
A lawyer who has a Michigan professional corporation and advertises under a trade name asks whether it is ethically required that the lawyer's name appear in the ad.
C-231, CI-343, CI-357, CI-405, CI-454, and CI-852, all decided under the former Michigan Code of Professional Responsibility, require the name of the lawyer responsible for the actions of the group to appear in advertising under a trade name. The Committee is now asked for a determination under the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and relevant case law.
MRPC 7.5 states in part:
"A trade name may be used by a lawyer in private practice if it does not imply a connection with a government agency or with a public or charitable legal services organization, and it is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1."
MRPC 7.1 states in part:
"A lawyer may, on the lawyer's own behalf, on behalf of a partner or associate, or on behalf of any other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer's law firm, use or participate in the use of any form of public communication that is not false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive."
The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct contain provision 7.2(d) which states:
"(d) Any communication made pursuant to this rule shall include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for its content."
The ABA provision was included in the proposed Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct recommended to the Michigan Supreme Court by the Representative Assembly. However, when the Court issued its order implementing the Rules, proposed MRPC 7.2(d) had been deleted. The Committee interprets this action to mean that although it is constitutionally permissible to require in an ad advertising a trade name inclusion of a lawyer responsible, our Court has chosen not to do so.
Therefore, absent a violation of MRPC 7.1 or 7.5, the name of a lawyer responsible for the actions of the group is not required when lawyers advertise under a trade name.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1989 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.