Could a Nebraska law firm use different firm-name variations at offices in different cities or states?

Plain-English summary

A firm with offices in different cities proposed omitting from one office's firm name the name of a partner who resided in another city.

The committee found no prohibition on the proposed variation. It applied the former standard that firm names and letterhead could not be false, misleading, or deceptive and should not misrepresent or conceal material facts.

The variation could be more descriptive of the partnership at each location. The committee's approval assumed that every lawyer named in each office's version was in fact a partner, as required by former DR 2-102(C).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1977, before Nebraska's adoption of the 2005 Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent firm-name, partnership, letterhead, multioffice, and misleading-communication rules or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.

Common questions

Q: Could the firm omit one partner's name at a different office?

A: Yes, on the facts presented.

Q: Did every lawyer named at an office have to be a partner?

A: Yes. The committee made that an express assumption of its conclusion.

Q: What content would make a firm name impermissible?

A: A false, misleading, or deceptive name, including one that misrepresented or concealed material facts.

Background and rules framework

Former DR 2-102(C) prohibited holding lawyers out as partners unless they were partners in fact. Former Canon 33 barred false, misleading, assumed, or trade firm names.

Citations and references

Former professional standards:

• DR 2-102(C) and ABA Canon 33

See also

• Nebraska Ethics Op. 78-4: Interstate firm names
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 80-10: Not-a-partnership disclaimer
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 12-01: Different-office trade names

Source

• Landing page: Nebraska lawyer ethics opinions archive
• Original PDF: Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 77-3

Original opinion text

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

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 77-3

IT IS NOT IMPROPER FOR A LAW FIRM WITH OFFICES IN DIFFERENT CITIES OR STATES TO USE A VARIATION IN THE FIRM NAME IN THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, PROVIDED THE LAWYERS INCLUDED IN THE NAME USED IN EACH LOCATION ARE IN FACT PARTNERS.

FACTS

You inquire as to whether there is any prohibition against your firm using a variation in the name of the firm as between its offices in different cities. You propose that the name of a partner resident of one city be eliminated in the firm name used in the other city.

DISCUSSION

The Committee finds no prohibition of the variation in firm name which you propose.

Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association provides in part as follows:

"...In the selection and use of a firm name, no false, misleading, assumed or trade name shall be used..."

The opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics emphasize that in the selection of a firm name any name which is false or likely to be misleading is prohibited. There must be no imposition or deception in the firm name or letterhead.

Wise, on Legal Ethics, Chapter XIV at page 206, says:

"The Canons permit partnerships. Care must be taken that the firm name and letterhead neither misrepresent nor conceal material facts."

CONCLUSION
The variation in firm names which you propose does not appear to contain anything false, misleading or deceptive. It may, in fact, be more descriptive, rather than less descriptive, of the partnership.

This opinion assumes, of course, that all lawyers mentioned in the firm name in both offices would be, in fact, partners. DR 2-102(c).

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 77-3