Can a lawyer who is also a CPA say so on his cards, stationery, or office window, and may he practice law and accounting at the same time?

Plain-English summary

The Committee took up three inquiries about a lawyer who is also a certified public accountant. First, whether he may state on his law-office stationery and professional cards that he is also a CPA. The Committee held that statement improper, adopting the reasoning of ABA Opinion 272 that a lawyer should be precluded from holding himself out, even passively, as employable in another independent professional capacity, while recognizing that nothing bars a lawyer from being a CPA or using accounting knowledge in his law practice. It noted that a lawyer-CPA may perform what are primarily accounting services as an incident to his law practice, but may not hold himself out as practicing accounting at the same office, which would be advertising in violation of Canon 27.

Second, whether the lawyer may display office-window lettering indicating both his law office and his status as a CPA. The Committee found that such lettering would clearly be advertising proscribed by Canon 27, especially in light of the cited opinions.

Third, whether a New Jersey bar member may practice law simultaneously with public accounting. The Committee called this a close question on which respected authorities differ, reviewing the ABA majority view (that dual practice was proscribed because accounting could feed the law practice) and the contrary New York view. Answering the question as directed to it, the Committee found that the dual practices of law and accounting, per se, by lawyers would not violate the Canons, nor did it appear that any other rules of the New Jersey Supreme Court would be violated.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1964, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics; communications about a lawyer's services are now governed by RPC 7.1, and a lawyer's law-related (ancillary) services by RPC 5.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer-CPA list "CPA" on his cards and stationery?

A: No. The Committee held that holding himself out, even passively, as employable as an accountant on his law cards and stationery was improper under Canon 27.

Q: Could he put "Certified Public Accountant" on his office window?

A: No. The Committee held the office-window lettering would clearly be advertising proscribed by Canon 27.

Q: Could he practice law and accounting at the same time at all?

A: Yes. The Committee found that the dual practices, per se, would not violate the Canons or other Supreme Court rules, distinguishing the separate question of advertising the second profession.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics, distinguishing the act of practicing two professions (permitted) from advertising the second profession through cards, stationery, or signage (prohibited). The advertising question is now addressed by RPC 7.1 and the ancillary-services question by RPC 5.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as in effect at the time):

• Canon of Professional Ethics 27 (advertising and solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 272 (1946) and 297 (1961): a lawyer may not hold himself out in a second professional capacity; dual practice
• Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Opinions 788 (1954), 743 (1949); N.Y. County Lawyers Association, Opinion 388 (1950)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 447: A Lawyer's Use of "CPA" on a Letterhead
• NJ ACPE Op. 433: Accountant's Name and Out-of-State Letterhead Notations
• NJ ACPE Op. 36: Patent Lawyer on a New Jersey Firm's Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp23-1.html

Original opinion text

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

87 N.J.L.J. 19
January 9, 1964

OPINION 23

Dual Professional Occupations
Lawyer-Accountant Advertising

The Committee has received three inquiries relating to conduct of a lawyer who is also a certified public accountant.

(1) May a lawyer who is also a certified public accountant state upon his law office stationery and his professional cards that he is also a certified public accountant?

It is our opinion that such a statement on a lawyer's professional card is improper. In so holding we adopt the reasoning set forth in American Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 272 (1946), as follows:

The Committee all deem it in the interest of the profession and its clients that a lawyer should be precluded from holding himself out, even passively, as employable in another independent professional capacity. We find no provision in the Canons precluding a lawyer from being a C.P.A., or from using his knowledge and experience in accounting in his law practice.

The Committee all agree that a lawyer, who is also a C.P.A. may perform what are primarily accounting services, as an incident to his law practice, without violating our Canons. We are also agreed that he may not properly hold himself out as practicing accounting at the same office as that in which he practices law, since this would constitute an advertisement of his services as accountant which would violate Canon 27 as construed in our opinions.

See also Assn. of the Bar, City of N.Y., Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 788 (1954), providing in part:

As for the proposed use of the term certified public accountant, that in no sense denotes a legal specialty, nor indeed any branch of the law. Reference thereto would constitute an advertisement of qualifications for the practice of a separate and distinct profession, and is therefore disapproved. (Canon 27).

(2) May a lawyer who is also an accountant display lettering upon his office window indicating that he maintains his law office as well as the fact that he is a certified public accountant?

The Committee is of the opinion that the proposed office window lettering would clearly be advertising such as is proscribed by Canon 27, particularly in the light of the above-cited opinions, which would be equally applicable here.

(3) May a member of the Bar of New Jersey engage in the practice of law in this State simultaneously with the practice of public accounting?

The question is a close one on which respected authorities differ. A majority of the American Bar Association's Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances in 1946 felt such dual practices were proscribed by Canon 27 for the reason that realistically the accounting practice could serve as a feeder for the law practice. (See American Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 272, at p. 569 (1957 ed.)) A minority of the Committee, however, found "nothing in the Canons which precludes a lawyer from attempting to carry on both professions, wholly independent of one another, at the same time but from a different office with different stationery and where in practicing accounting the lawyer follows all the Canons pertaining to lawyers." More recently the American Bar Association's Committee reaffirmed its position as expressed by the majority in 1946. (See Opinion 297 (1961).) However, the Committees of the N.Y. County Lawyers Assn. and of the Assn. Of the Bar, City of N.Y., in a joint opinion (N.Y. County, Opinion 388 (1950), City of N.Y., Opinion 743 (1949), found that there would be no violation of Canon 27 where lawyers who were also certified public accountants practiced accounting in the same office and placed on their office door their legal firm name, followed by "Attorneys and Counselors at Law" and their accounting firm name, followed by "Certified Public Accountants," provided, however, that the attorneys-accountants "in the practice of their profession as certified public accountants, adhere to the professional standards applicable to attorneys at law with respect to advertising and solicitation."

Specifically answering question number 3 as directed to us, we find that the dual practices of law and accounting, per se, by lawyers would not violate the Canons of Professional Ethics. Nor does it appear to us that any other rules of our Supreme Court would be violated by such dual practices.