Must an interstate law firm list all of its partners, including those not licensed in New Jersey, in the firm name on its New Jersey letterhead?

Plain-English summary

This page covers the supplement to Opinion 558, addressing the letterhead of an interstate partnership that lists all members and associates of the firm. By order dated September 7, 1985, the Supreme Court remanded the original opinion to the Committee for reconsideration in light of the arguments and issues presented on a petition for review.

On reconsideration, the Committee held that the use of a firm name which lists and identifies the resident New Jersey partners licensed to practice in New Jersey complies with the requirements of RPC 7.5(b), and that it is not necessary to list the other partners who are not licensed to practice in New Jersey in the firm's letterhead. The Committee added the qualification that any lawyer who is listed on the letterhead must have his jurisdictional limitations noted.

Currency note

This supplemental opinion issued in 1985 (following the Supreme Court's remand order of September 7, 1985), before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the firm-name and multijurisdictional-practice rules have been amended over time. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does an interstate firm have to list its non-New-Jersey partners on its New Jersey letterhead?

A: No. The supplement held that listing the resident New Jersey partners licensed in New Jersey complies with RPC 7.5(b), and the firm need not list partners not licensed in New Jersey.

Q: What must the firm show for any lawyer it does list?

A: Per the supplement, any lawyer listed on the letterhead must have his jurisdictional limitations noted.

Q: Why was the opinion reconsidered?

A: The Supreme Court remanded the original Opinion 558 to the Committee by order dated September 7, 1985, for reconsideration in light of the arguments raised on a petition for review.

Background and rules framework

The supplement applies RPC 7.5(b), New Jersey's rule on firm names and letterheads for lawyers practicing in multiple jurisdictions, which requires that a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction indicate the jurisdictional limitations of lawyers not licensed to practice where an office is located.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5(b) (firm names and letterheads; jurisdictional limitations of listed lawyers)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 593: Limitations on Firm Names (Employees and In-House Counsel)
• NJ ACPE Op. 589: A Lawyer's Use of "CPA" on Letterhead (overruling Op. 447)

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp558-1.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.

SUPPLEMENT TO OPINION 558

Letterhead: Interstate Partnership Listing All Members and Associates of Firm

The Supreme Court by order dated September 7, 1985 remanded the foregoing opinion to the Committee for reconsideration in light of the arguments and issues presented on a petition for review.

The Committee has reconsidered the above opinion and holds that the use of a firm name which lists and identifies the resident New Jersey partners licensed to practice in New Jersey complies with the requirements of RPC 7.5(b) and it is not necessary to list the other partners who are not licensed to practice in New Jersey in its letterhead. However, any lawyer listed on the letterhead must have his jurisdictional limitations noted.