Can a New Jersey firm form a patent-law association with a lawyer admitted only in D.C. and list him as 'Patent Attorney' on its letterhead?

Plain-English summary

A New Jersey firm was approached by a patent attorney registered to practice before the United States Patent Office and admitted as an attorney at law in Washington, D.C., but not in New Jersey. He wished to form an association with the firm restricted exclusively to the practice of patent law. The firm asked whether the association would violate the Canons or the New Jersey Court Rules, whether it could list the attorney's name with the designation "Patent Attorney" and a notation that he was admitted in D.C. only, and whether the D.C.-admission notation was necessary.

The Committee held that the proposed partnership and the related proposals were all improper. A New Jersey firm is presumed for all purposes to consist of lawyers admitted to practice in New Jersey. A patent lawyer registered before the Patent Office, but not admitted in New Jersey, had no right to have his name in the New Jersey firm or in any listing, on stationery or otherwise, because he was not a lawyer authorized to practice in the State; such an association would violate the Canons and the New Jersey Court Rules.

The Committee added that, although not specifically asked, if the patent attorney joined the firm in his capacity as a member of the bar of another state, it might be proper to list his name on the firm's stationery with the notation "Admitted in Washington, D.C. Only," but under no circumstances would his designation as a patent attorney or his connection with the practice of patent law be permitted on the stationery or elsewhere.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in March 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 33 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics; firm composition, multijurisdictional practice, and letterhead designations are now governed by RPC 5.5, RPC 7.1, and RPC 7.5. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 New Jersey firm form the patent-law association?

A: No. The Committee held the proposed partnership was improper because a New Jersey firm is presumed to consist of New Jersey-admitted lawyers, and the patent attorney was not admitted in the state.

Q: Could the firm list him as "Patent Attorney" on its letterhead?

A: No. The Committee held that under no circumstances would his designation as a patent attorney or his connection with patent law be permitted on the stationery or elsewhere.

Q: Was there any way he could appear on the letterhead?

A: Possibly. The Committee said that if he joined as a member of another state's bar, it might be proper to list his name with the notation "Admitted in Washington, D.C. Only," but without the patent-attorney designation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 33 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics, treating a New Jersey firm as presumptively composed of New Jersey-admitted lawyers and barring a non-admitted patent lawyer's inclusion or designation. These subjects are now governed by RPC 5.5 (unauthorized and multijurisdictional practice), RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services), and RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads).

Citations and references

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

• Canon of Professional Ethics 33 (partnerships and firm names)

Other opinions cited:

• Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 545 (1940), 628 (1943)
• New York County Lawyers Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 209 (1922), 345 (1938)
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinions 257 (1944) and 263 (1944): foreign lawyers and firm associations

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 152: Partnership With Foreign Attorneys
• NJ ACPE Op. 307: Foreign Attorney in a Firm Name and Specialty Designation
• NJ ACPE Op. 447: A Lawyer's Use of "CPA" on a Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp36-1.html

Original opinion text

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

87 N.J.L.J. 190
March 26, 1964

OPINION 36

Partnerships with Patent Lawyer Letterheads

An attorney inquiries as follows:

A New Jersey firm has been approached by a patent attorney registered to practice before the United States Patent Office. The attorney desires to form an association with the firm restricted exclusively to the practice of patent law. The attorney is admitted to practice as an attorney at law in Washington, D.C., but not in New Jersey.

1. Would the association violate the Canons of Professional Ethics or the New Jersey Court Rules?

2. May the firm include the attorney's name followed by the designation "Patent Attorney" and notation that the attorney is admitted in Washington, D.C. only, on its stationery?

3. Is the notation of admission in Washington, D.C. on the stationery necessary?

It is the opinion of this Committee that the proposed formation of the partnership and the related proposals are all improper. 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. A patent lawyer registered to practice before the United States Patent Office would have no right to have his name included in the New Jersey firm, nor is his association proper in any listing, whether it be on the firm's stationery or otherwise, because the patent attorney as such is not a lawyer authorized to practice in this State. This being so, such a contemplated association would obviously violate the Canons and our New Jersey Court Rules.

While the applicant does not specifically ask the question, nevertheless, if he were to join the New Jersey firm in his capacity as a member of the bar of another state, it might be proper for him to have his name on the stationery of the New Jersey firm with the quotation "Admitted in Washington, D.C. Only," but under no circumstances would his designation as a patent attorney or his connection with the practice of patent law be permitted on the stationery or elsewhere.

There are innumerable opinions written on this subject in various states and at various times. See Ass'n. of the Bar, City of N.Y., Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 545 (1940), 628 (1943), and N.Y. County Lawyers Ass'n, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 209 (1922), 345 (1938). See also A.B.A. Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 257 (1944), where the Committee went to great length in discussing this entire subject, and it would be of interest to anyone seeking advise on the subject to read that opinion. See page 29 of the 1957 volume of that Committee's opinions where there is a report of a number of decisions and opinions, all as reflected in a discussion of the Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 33.

See also A.B.A. Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievance, Opinion 263 (1944), where the status of foreign lawyers admitted to practice in one state, who seek information as to their ability to advise clients on various subjects in other states, is discussed in great detail.