Can a multistate law firm open a New Jersey office under its existing firm name when the named partners are not New Jersey lawyers?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer was counsel to a law firm doing business in several jurisdictions under its firm name, called "X & Y" in the opinion, and asked whether the firm could establish a New Jersey office or offices under that name. The brief in support correctly pointed to DR 2-102(C), which barred a lawyer from holding himself out as having a partnership unless its members are in fact partners, required that listings for a multistate firm make clear the jurisdictional limitations on members not licensed in all listed jurisdictions, and provided that a firm name may not be used in New Jersey unless all those named are or were members of the New Jersey bar.

The Committee found the rule's language clear. It said it was not at liberty to disregard the plain language and referred the inquirer to R. 1:14, observing that only the Supreme Court has the power to amend or otherwise modify the Disciplinary Rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, 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 rule it applied (DR 2-102(C)) now corresponds broadly to RPC 7.5. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the multistate firm open a New Jersey office under its existing name?

A: No. The opinion concluded that under DR 2-102(C)'s plain language, a firm name may not be used in New Jersey unless all those named are or were New Jersey bar members.

Q: Could the Committee make an exception?

A: No. It said it could not disregard the rule's plain language and that only the Supreme Court has the power to amend or modify the Disciplinary Rules.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-102(C), which governed partnership representations and firm names for lawyers licensed in different jurisdictions, including the requirement that a New Jersey firm name include only those who are or were New Jersey bar members. In current New Jersey terms the analysis maps onto RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). The Committee treated the requirement as a flat rule it could not relax.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads); decided under former DR 2-102(C)

Court rules:

• R. 1:14 (only the Supreme Court may amend or modify the Disciplinary Rules)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 476: Local Attorneys "Of Counsel, The Nationwide Law Firm"
• NJ ACPE Op. 479: Continuing a Firm Name After the Named Lawyer's Death
• NJ ACPE Op. 512: Letterhead of an Interstate Partnership and Affiliated Firm

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp475-1.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.

107 N.J.L.J. 283, April 2, 1981

OPINION 475

Interstate Firm Name Used in Local Office

The inquirer acting as counsel to a law firm which is doing business in several other jurisdictions under its firm name which we shall call "X & Y," inquires whether the firm may properly establish a law office or offices in New Jersey under the name "X & Y." In the brief submitted in support of the inquiry our attention is correctly called to the provisions of DR 2-102(C) which reads as follows: A lawyer shall not hold himself out as having a partnership with one or more lawyers unless they are in fact partners. 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 in other permissible listings make clear the jurisdictional limitations on those members 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 named are or were members of the bar in New Jersey. (Emphasis added)

The language of the rule is clear. This Committee is not at liberty to disregard its plain language and refers the inquirer to R. 1:14, observing that only the Supreme Court has the power to amend or otherwise modify the Disciplinary Rules.