Can a New Jersey law firm list an affiliated out-of-state law firm by name on its letterhead?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer was a member of a New Jersey firm with numerous partners admitted in other states, including Pennsylvania. Its letterhead already listed "Philadelphia office" with an address and phone number in the right-hand column. The firm proposed to add, under that listing, the name of the Philadelphia firm with which it had a partnership arrangement, stating that the Philadelphia firm was "affiliated" with the New Jersey firm.

The Committee found no objection under the New Jersey Supreme Court's then-recent decision in In re Professional Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 475, 89 N.J. 74 (1982) (the Jacoby & Meyers matter). The opinion quoted Justice Pashman's recognition of "the right of New Jersey attorneys to affiliate with a national law firm and to advertise their association," and the statement that the New Jersey branch "may note such an association on office signs, professional cards and letterheads, as long as the reference is not misleading."

In light of that approval, the Committee concluded that lawyers in New Jersey affiliated with firms in other states may signify the affiliation on their letterheads, professional cards, and office signs, so long as they make clear the out-of-state firm is not licensed to practice in New Jersey, and that the proposed use of the Pennsylvania firm's name did not conflict with DR 2-102(C).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983, 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. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a New Jersey firm put an affiliated out-of-state firm's name on its letterhead?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded the firm could list the affiliated Philadelphia firm under its Philadelphia-office heading and describe the relationship as "affiliated."

Q: What condition did the opinion attach?

A: The letterhead had to make clear that the out-of-state firm was not licensed to practice in New Jersey, and the reference could not be misleading.

Q: What authority did the Committee rely on?

A: It relied on the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in In re Opinion 475, 89 N.J. 74 (1982), which recognized the right of New Jersey lawyers to note an affiliation with an out-of-state or national firm on letterheads, cards, and signs.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted DR 2-102(C), the former Code provision governing firm names and letterheads, in light of the Supreme Court's Opinion 475 decision. In current terms the question maps onto RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads, including the requirement to indicate jurisdictional limitations on the right to practice) and RPC 5.5 (multijurisdictional practice).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads; jurisdictional limitations)
• MR 5.5 / NJ RPC 5.5 (multijurisdictional practice)

Cases:

• In re Professional Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 475, 89 N.J. 74 (1982), app. dism. sub nom. Jacoby and Meyers v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 103 S. Ct. 285, 74 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1982)

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp512-1.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.

111 N.J.L.J. 381, April 14, 1983

OPINION 512

Letterhead Interstate Partnership

The inquirer is a member of a New Jersey law firm. It has numerous partners admitted to the Bars of various other states, including Pennsylvania. The inquiry is whether, on its letterhead in the right-hand column under the address of its Philadelphia office, it may show the name of a Pennsylvania law firm with which it maintains an interstate partnership relationship. At the present time, in the right-hand column of the letterhead, it is stated "Philadelphia office" with the address and phone number. Inquirer now proposes that under this listing shall appear the name of the Philadelphia law firm with which the New Jersey firm has its partnership arrangement. It would be stated on its letterhead that the Philadelphia firm is "affiliated" with the New Jersey firm.

There would appear to be no objection to this under the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in In re Professional Ethics Advisory Committee Op. 475, 89 N.J. 74 (1982), app. dism. sub nom., Jacoby and Meyers v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, et al., U.S., 103 S. Ct. 285, 74 L. Ed. 2nd 272 (1982). In this case, which involves Jacoby & Meyers, Justice Pashman, writing the majority opinion, said at page 88:

I subscribe to this determination because the Court also recognizes the right of New Jersey attorneys to affiliate with a national law firm and to advertise their association. Hence, the firm name restriction is extremely narrow.

And, again at page 99:

The New Jersey branch of the firm may note such an association on office signs, professional cards and letterheads, as long as the reference is not misleading. See ante at 88. It may also utilize all currently permissible forms of commercial advertising.

In view of the approval of the Supreme Court that lawyers in New Jersey affiliated with law firms in other states may signify such affiliation on their letterheads, professional cards and office signs, so long as they make it clear that the out-of-state firm is not licensed to practice in New Jersey, the proposed use of the name of the Pennsylvania law firm is not in conflict with DR 2-102(C).