May a New Jersey firm use a firm name that includes a partner admitted only in another state, such as 'Smith and Jones' where Jones is admitted only in New York?

Plain-English summary

The Committee reviewed a proposed announcement stating that "Smith" had moved his offices to New Jersey, where he and "Jones of the New York Bar" had formed a partnership, with two associates to be associated with the firm of "Smith and Jones," which, in addition to specializing in labor matters representing management, would engage in the general practice of law. The inquiry asked whether the announcement violated the Disciplinary Rules as to the partnership and as to advertising a specialization.

On the firm name, the Committee applied DR 2-102(C), adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in July 1971, which provides that a firm name may not be used in New Jersey unless all those named are or were members of the New Jersey bar. It emphasized that New Jersey had deliberately departed from the ABA Code, which allowed the same firm name in each jurisdiction, and that the New Jersey practice had never condoned a partnership name including partners not locally admitted, citing ABA Formal Opinion 318 (1967) under Canon 33 and its own Opinion 152, which held that a New Jersey firm is presumed to consist of lawyers admitted in New Jersey and that the firm name should not contain a foreign attorney's name.

Although the announcement did not formally state the firm name, the Committee read the statement that the associates would be associated with "the firm of Smith and Jones" as indicating the firm would be known as "Smith and Jones," which is improper under DR 2-102(C) because Jones was admitted only in New York.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. The firm-name and jurisdictional concern then in DR 2-102(C) is now treated under RPC 7.5. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a New Jersey firm name include a partner who is only admitted in another state?

A: No. The Committee held DR 2-102(C) bars using a firm name in New Jersey unless all those named are or were members of the New Jersey bar.

Q: Does it matter that the announcement did not formally state the firm name?

A: No. The Committee read the statement that associates would be associated with "the firm of Smith and Jones" as indicating the firm would be known by that name, making it improper.

Q: How did New Jersey's rule differ from the ABA's?

A: The Committee stressed that New Jersey deliberately departed from the ABA Code, which allowed the same firm name in each jurisdiction, so the ABA's more permissive approach did not control in New Jersey.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-102(C), as adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1971, requiring that all persons named in a New Jersey firm name be or have been members of the New Jersey bar, and read against ABA Formal Opinion 318 and the Committee's Opinions 152 and 223. In current New Jersey terms, firm names are governed by RPC 7.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102(C) (firm names; multijurisdictional listings), as in effect 1975; now MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5
• ABA Canon 33 (predecessor firm-name canon)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 152, 92 N.J.L.J. 333 (1969)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 223, 94 N.J.L.J. 1197 (1971)
• ABA Formal Opinion 318 (1967)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 305: An Out-of-State Attorney's Legal Title on a Bank's Letterhead
• NJ ACPE Op. 475: An Interstate Firm Name Used in a Local Office
• NJ ACPE Op. 512: Letterhead, Interstate Partnership, Affiliated Firm
• NJ ACPE Op. 306: Announcing the Start of an Out-of-State Practice

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp307-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

98 N.J.L.J. 513, June 12, 1975

OPINION 307

Announcements Foreign Attorney in Firm's Name Management Representation Specialty

The announcement which forms the basis of this opinion states:

Smith announces the removal of his offices to New City, New Jersey Where he and Jones of the New York Bar have formed a partnership X and Y shall be associated with the firm of Smith and Jones The firm, in addition to specializing in labor matters representing management, will be engaged in the general practice of law.

Does the announcement violate the Disciplinary Rules with respect to (a) the partnership and (b) "advertising" a specialization? Regarding the partnership, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(C), adopted in July, 1971 by the New Jersey Supreme Court, provides:

A partnership shall not be formed or continued between or among lawyers licensed in different jurisdictions unless all enumerations, of the members, and associates of the firm on its letterhead and other permissible listings make clear the jurisdiction limitations on these member and associates of the firm not licensed to practice in all listed jurisdictions; provided, however, a firm name may not be used in New Jersey unless all those names are or were members of the bar in New Jersey.

And, as detailed in Opinion 223, 94 N.J.L.J. 1197 (1971), the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the ABA Committee on Evaluation of Ethical Standards differs from the rule adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in that it provides "the same firm name may be used in each jurisdiction." The New Jersey Supreme Court's change in the rule must be regarded as of significance.

In 1967 under the Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 33, ABA Formal Opinion 318 concluded: "It would be improper to maintain an office in a state under a partnership name which includes the names of partners not licensed to practice in that state, unless such practice is condoned by local custom and usage in the state where the office is to be maintained."

The practice of using a partnership name which includes the names of partners not locally admitted has never been condoned in New Jersey even prior to the express prohibition adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Opinion 152, 92 N.J.L.J. 333 (1969), reasoned:

A New Jersey firm is presumed, for all purposes, to consist of lawyers who have been admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey. No firm name may be chosen which would tend to induce a belief that all members of the firm were admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey, if such is not the case.

We there concluded "that the firm name in New Jersey should not contain the foreign attorney's name."

Although the announcement of the partnership in this instance does not specifically set forth the firm name, the notice indicates "X and Y shall be associated with the firm of Smith and Jones" (emphasis added). This suggests that the firm will be known by the name of Smith and Jones, which is improper under DR 2-102(C).