Ezel / Ethics Opinions / MOLEC

What does the opinion say when a former firm keeps a departed lawyer’s photo and biography on its website?

Short answer The opinion recommends raising Rule 4-7.1 with the firm and documenting removal requests. If the firm neither removes the material within a reasonable time nor reasonably explains the delay, it says to report the matter to OCDC under Rule 8.3.
Bar
MOLEC
Issued
2006

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2006. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2006
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
How much weight this carries: Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30, formal opinions are binding; informal opinions are advisory. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer’s former firm continued to display the lawyer’s photo and biography months after departure. The lawyer asked whether an ethics rule prohibited that and how to resolve it.

The opinion recommends bringing Rule 4-7.1 to the firm’s attention and documenting requests for removal. If the firm does not remove the information within a reasonable period or provide a reasonable explanation, it says Rule 8.3 calls for reporting the matter to OCDC for investigation. It declines to form an opinion about the firm lawyers’ conduct without hearing from them.

In practice

The opinion describes communication with the former firm, documentation of the request, and possible reporting to OCDC if the listed conditions persist. It does not decide that the firm committed misconduct.

Common questions

Q: Does the opinion decide the former firm violated a rule?

A: No. It says an opinion about the firm lawyers’ conduct requires an opportunity for them to provide information.

Q: When does it discuss reporting to OCDC?

A: If the firm does not remove the information within a reasonable time and gives no reasonable explanation.

Q: Which rules does it identify?

A: It mentions Rule 4-7.1 for the website information and Rule 8.3 for potential reporting.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses the website information under Rule 4-7.1 and conditional reporting under Rule 8.3.

Citations and references

Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 4-7.1
  • Rule 8.3

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney’s former law firm continues to post Attorney’s picture and biographical profile on their website even though Attorney has not been with the firm for several months. Attorney wants the information removed from the website. Is there an ethical rule which prohibits firms from committing acts such as this? How can this situation be resolved without having it mushroom into professional misconduct that must be reported and investigated?

ANSWER: It is recommended that Attorney review Rule 4–7.1 and bring that rule to the attention of Attorney’s former firm. Attorney should document the communications to the former firm requesting that information about Attorney be removed from the firm’s website.If the former firm does not remove Attorney’s information within a reasonable time frame and does not provide a reasonable explanation for the failure to do so, under Rule 8.3, Attorney should report this matter to OCDC so they can investigate to determine whether a violation has occurred. An opinion about the conduct of the attorneys in the firm cannot be formed without the opportunity for those attorneys to provide information

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2006. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace