Can a Mississippi lawyer share a firm letterhead with an out-of-state lawyer who is not licensed in Mississippi?

Plain-English summary

Lawyer X was licensed in both Mississippi and Louisiana and wanted to associate with Lawyer Y, who practiced only in Louisiana, and to reflect that association on a shared letterhead that clearly showed where each lawyer was licensed. The Committee was asked whether this is proper so long as the letterhead accurately states who is licensed where.

The opinion concludes the lawyers may engage in the relationship if certain guidelines are met. It applies Mississippi Rule 7.7(c), which lets a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction use the same name in each, but requires that identification of the lawyers indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed where the office is located. It cites ABA Formal Opinion No. 316 (a multistate firm may practice in each state so long as only lawyers admitted in a given state perform that state's law practice) and ABA Formal Opinion No. 115 (the public must be apprised of the exact nature of the affiliation, with no deception). The opinion cautions that under Rule 7.7(e), lawyers may state or imply a partnership only when one exists; if the arrangement is only a case-by-case association, a letterhead conveying a regular partnership would violate Rule 7.7(e).

In practice

Under this opinion, a Mississippi lawyer and an out-of-state lawyer may use a shared letterhead reflecting their association, provided two conditions are met: the letterhead discloses each lawyer's jurisdictional limitations under Rule 7.7(c), and the association is in fact a partnership or other permitted organization rather than a case-by-case arrangement under Rule 7.7(e). The opinion applies Rules 7.7(c) and 7.7(e) and the cited ABA opinions to require accurate disclosure of the affiliation's nature.

Common questions

Q: Can my firm name appear the same way in two states when one partner is not licensed in both?

A: Yes. Rule 7.7(c) lets a multi-jurisdiction firm use the same name in each jurisdiction, but the lawyer identifications must indicate the jurisdictional limits on those not licensed where the office sits.

Q: What does the letterhead have to disclose?

A: It must show each lawyer's licensing limits and, per ABA Formal Opinions 316 and 115, apprise the public of the exact nature of the affiliation without deception or misrepresentation.

Q: What if the lawyers only work together case by case?

A: Then a letterhead conveying a regular partnership would violate Rule 7.7(e), which permits stating or implying a partnership only when one actually exists.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 7.7(c) and 7.7(e) (firm names and letterheads; Model Rule 7.5). Rule 7.7(c) governs use of a single firm name across jurisdictions with disclosure of jurisdictional limits; Rule 7.7(e) bars stating or implying a partnership that does not exist. The opinion supports its analysis with ABA Formal Opinion No. 316 and ABA Formal Opinion No. 115.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / MS RPC 7.7(c), 7.7(e) (firm names and letterheads; multi-jurisdiction names; disclosure of affiliation)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion No. 316: a multistate firm may practice in each state if only lawyers admitted there perform that state's law practice
• ABA Formal Opinion No. 115: the public must be apprised of the exact nature of the affiliation, without deception

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/73/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1088/et_op_73-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 73

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED April 02, 1982

AMENDED April 06, 2013

FIRM NAME - LETTERHEAD - Partnership with out-of-state lawyer is authorized under certain conditions.

The Ethics Committee of The Mississippi Bar has been asked to render an opinion on the following facts or situation:

Lawyer X is authorized to practice law in the States of Mississippi and Louisiana. He desires to become associated with Lawyer Y who practices solely in the State of Louisiana. They desire that their letterhead reflect such an association, clearly showing that Lawyer X is licensed to practice in the State of Louisiana and Mississippi, and Lawyer Y is licensed to practice only in Louisiana. Lawyer X wishes to know if it is proper to do this so long as the letterhead clearly reflects who is licensed to practice where.

The Committee is of the opinion that Lawyers X and Y may properly engage in this relationship provided certain guidelines are met. Attention is directed to Rule 7.7(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) which states:

A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.

Formal Opinion No. 316, American Bar Association, states specifically:

Of course, only the individuals permitted by the laws of their respective states to practice law there would be permitted to do the acts defined by the state as the practice of law in that state, but there are no ethical barriers to carrying on the practice by such a firm in each state so long as the particular person admitted in that state is the person who, on behalf of the firm, vouches for the work of all the others and with the client in the courts, did the legal acts defined by that state as the practice of law.

Formal Opinion No. 115, American Bar Association, has emphasized that the public must be apprised of the exact nature of affiliation, and each lawyer involved must carefully avoid any deception or misrepresentation. Lawyers X and Y are cautioned to disclose the exact nature of their association.

As a cautionary matter, Lawyer X and Y's attention is directed to Rule 7.7(e), MRPC, which provides that "[l]awyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership of other organization only when that is the fact . . . ." In this instance, if the proposed association is not structured as a partnership or other association permitted under the disciplinary rules, but is only on a case by case association, the committee is of the opinion that the use of a letterhead which conveyed the existence of a regular partnership association would violate the dictates of Rule 7.7(e), MRPC.