After a solo practitioner who practices as 'Smith & Associates' dies, can the surviving associates keep using that name?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer practiced individually under the trade name "John Smith & Associates" and asked, on those limited facts, whether the same name could be continued by the associates if he died. The Committee recalled its Opinion 224, which had held the use of such a name acceptable provided the inquirer remained in active practice and the letterhead and other permissible listings clearly disclosed who were in fact members of the firm and who were associates.

The Committee read its earlier sanction of "John Smith & Associates" as resting specifically on Smith's continuation as an active member of the firm. Because the present inquiry involved facts and usage going beyond the limitations and conditions of that opinion, the Committee answered the question in the negative, concluding that continuing the name after Smith's death would be misleading to the general public.

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 rules it applied now correspond broadly to 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the associates keep using "John Smith & Associates" after Smith died?

A: No. The opinion concluded that continuing the name after Smith's death would mislead the public.

Q: Why was the name permissible before but not after his death?

A: The opinion explained that the earlier approval in Opinion 224 depended on Smith remaining an active member of the firm, with the listings clearly distinguishing members from associates.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the firm-name principles then governing New Jersey lawyers, which barred misleading trade names. In current New Jersey terms the analysis maps onto RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications). The controlling point was that a name implying an active named principal becomes misleading once that principal has died.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 224, 94 N.J.L.J. 1206 (1971) ("Smith & Associates" name acceptable while Smith remains in active practice)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 475: Interstate Firm Name Used in a Local Office
• NJ ACPE Op. 476: Local Attorneys "Of Counsel, The Nationwide Law Firm"
• NJ ACPE Op. 477: Attorney and Firm Names in a Business Publication Column

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp479-1.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. 329, April 16, 1981

OPINION 479

Firm Continued in Name of Decedent and Associates

The inquirer practices individually under the trade name of "John Smith & Associates." He asks whether the same name can be continued by the associates in the event of his death, and the inquiry is so limited. Our Opinion 224, 94 N.J.L.J. 1206 (1971), held that the use of such name is acceptable "provided that the inquirer remain in active practice and that the letterhead and other permissible listings clearly disclose who are in fact members of the firm and who are associates." That opinion sanctioned the use of the name "John Smith & Associates" based specifically upon the continuation of Mr. Smith as an active member of the firm and required that the letterhead and other permissible listings clearly disclose who are in fact members of the firm and who are associates. The inquiry herein includes facts and usage which go beyond the limitations and conditions set forth in that opinion.

The answer to the question as posed, therefore, is in the negative. To continue the name "John Smith & Associates" after the death of John Smith would be misleading to the general public.