Can a lawyer let his name or his firm's name be printed on the business card of an investigator who works on the firm's cases?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether it is ethically proper for an attorney to permit his name, or that of his firm, to be placed on the business card of an investigator who investigates facts pertaining to professional matters for the attorney or his firm. The Committee answered the inquiry in the negative.

It applied Canon 27, which permits the customary use of simple professional cards but condemns indirect advertising for professional employment. The Committee reasoned that attorneys should avoid not only unprofessional conduct but also the appearance of it, citing its Opinion 8. Although the use of such cards by an investigator might seem innocent, it could lead to abuses in many ways and might be taken as a representation that a layman was associated in the practice, contrary to the spirit of the Canons.

The Committee drew on the established principle that a lawyer's letterhead may not carry the name of a layman, reasoning that the same rationale applies to an investigator's card. It noted there are other ways of identification that avoid any possible abuse or misinterpretation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in November 1963, 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 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics. Questions about firm names and a lawyer's name on others' materials, supervision of nonlawyers, and misleading communications are now addressed by RPC 7.5, RPC 5.3, and RPC 7.1. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer's name appear on his investigator's business card?

A: No. The Committee answered the inquiry in the negative, finding the practice improper under Canon 27.

Q: Why was an investigator's card treated like a lawyer's letterhead?

A: The Committee reasoned that, like a letterhead carrying a layman's name, the card could imply a layman was associated in the practice of law and could lead to abuses.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 27 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics (advertising and solicitation), extending to an investigator's card the rule that a lawyer's letterhead may not carry a layman's name. Those concerns now appear in RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), and RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

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

• Canon of Professional Ethics 27 (advertising and solicitation; simple professional cards)

Other opinions cited:

• N.J. ACPE Opinion 8, 86 N.J.L.J. 718 (1963)
• Ass'n of the Bar of the City of N.Y., Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 341 (1935), 411 (1937)
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinions 233 and 272 (1946)
• Drinker, Legal Ethics 288 (1953)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 17: Lawyer Engaged by a Commercial Collection Agency
• NJ ACPE Op. 553: Business Cards by a Non-Lawyer Employee
• NJ ACPE Op. 647: Paraprofessional Employees on Law-Firm Business Cards

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp9-1.html

Original opinion text

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

86 N.J.L.J. 617
November 7, 1963

OPINION 9

Name of Attorney on
Investigator's Business Card

Inquiry has been made as to whether it is ethically proper for an attorney to permit his name or that of his firm to be placed on the business card of an investigator investigating facts pertaining to professional matters for the attorney or his firm.

Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27 reads in part:

It is unprofessional to solicit professional employment by circulars, advertisements, through touters or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations. Indirect advertisements for professional employment ... offend the traditions and lower the tone of our profession and are reprehensible; but the customary use of simple professional cards is not improper. ...

Not only should attorneys avoid unprofessional conduct, they should also avoid the appearance of such conduct. N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 8, 86 N.J.L.J. 718 (1963).

The use of such cards by an investigator though seemingly for an innocent purpose could lead to abuses in many ways. Besides, the use of such cards might be taken as a representation that a layman was associated in the practice contrary to the spirit of the Canons of Professional Ethics, Ass'n. of the Bar, City of N.Y., Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 411 (1937), 341 (1935); A.B.A. Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinions 233 and 272 (1946).

Since it has also been determined that a lawyer's letterhead may not carry the name of a layman, Drinker, Legal Ethics 288 (1953), it would seem to follow that the reason for this is equally applicable to the subject of the instant inquiry.

There are, of course, other ways of identification besides the suggested means, without any possible abuse or misinterpretation.

The Committee concludes that the inquiry must be answered in the negative.