Can independent lawyers sharing offices advertise as 'The Law Offices at X Square,' and when can lawyers or firms call themselves 'of counsel,' 'associated,' or 'affiliated' with each other?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Law firm F subleased space to two independent attorneys, L and M, who practiced in fields where F lacked expertise. The three shared offices, research facilities, and joint work on some matters, but used separate names and phone numbers. They proposed letterhead and advertising identifying each as "A Member Firm of the Law Offices at X Square," or describing themselves as "An Association of Independent Lawyers and Law Partnerships." The committee was asked whether the group could use that name on letterhead or in advertising, whether a law firm could be "of counsel" to another firm or to individuals, and whether a firm could call itself "associated" or "affiliated" with another.
The committee answered the trade-name questions "no" and the of-counsel and affiliation questions "yes," subject to limits. It held that "The Law Offices at X Square" was a prohibited trade name under DR 2-102(B), EC 2-11, and EC 2-13, and that listing the individual attorneys beneath it did not cure the problem, because the Code's bar on trade names is absolute and the listing did not clarify how the lawyers were related (also implicating the DR 2-101(K) requirement that each provider's name, address, and phone number appear). Turning to "of counsel," the committee explained the designation requires a "close, regular, personal relationship," not mere referral or occasional collaboration, and, following the ABA's 1990 reversal in Formal Op. 90-357, agreed that a law firm may be "of counsel" to another firm or to individuals where the requisite continuing relationship exists. It cautioned that "of counsel" lawyers and firms are treated as a single unit for conflict-of-interest and confidentiality purposes, so disqualifications are attributed across all of them. Finally, following ABA Formal Ops. 84-351 and 94-388, the committee accepted that firms may describe themselves as "associated" or "affiliated" when they maintain a relationship analogous to "of counsel" and disclose its nature (for example, fee or profit sharing, shared personnel, common training) to clients when relevant; in that respect it departed from earlier New York City opinions treating such terms as inherently misleading.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1995, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Disciplinary Rules and Ethical Considerations cited here) with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, effective April 1, 2009. 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: Can independent lawyers who share offices advertise under a shared location-based name?
A: The opinion concluded no; "The Law Offices at X Square" was a prohibited trade name under DR 2-102(B), and the Code's bar on trade names is absolute, not curable by added disclosure.
Q: Can a law firm be "of counsel" to another firm or to an individual lawyer?
A: Per the opinion, yes, where the parties maintain a close, regular, personal, continuing relationship, following the ABA's reversal of its contrary position in Formal Op. 90-357.
Q: Can firms call themselves "associated" or "affiliated" with each other?
A: The committee concluded they may, provided the relationship is analogous to "of counsel" and its nature is disclosed to specific prospective clients when relevant.
Q: How does an "of counsel" or "affiliated" relationship affect conflicts of interest?
A: The committee stated that such relationships are treated as a single unit for conflict and confidentiality purposes, so a disqualification applicable to one firm is attributed to all.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied New York Code DR 2-102(A)(4) ("of counsel" designation), DR 2-102(B) and (C) (firm names and listings), DR 2-102(D) (letterhead), DR 2-101(K) (required advertising content), and ECs 2-11 and 2-13 (trade names). It adopted the reasoning of ABA Formal Opinions 90-357, 84-351, and 94-388. The analysis corresponds to ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications about services) and 7.5 (firm names), with conflict attribution under Model Rule 1.10.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Code DR 2-101(K), DR 2-102(A)(4), DR 2-102(B), DR 2-102(C), DR 2-102(D); EC 2-11, EC 2-13 (applied in the opinion)
- MR 7.1 (communications about services); MR 7.5 (firm names); MR 1.10 (imputation of conflicts)
Cases:
- Nemet v. Nemet, 112 A.D.2d 359 (2d Dept. 1985), appeal dismissed, 66 N.Y.2d 602 (1986), "of counsel" conflict attribution
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Op. 90-357: a firm may be "of counsel" to another firm; close, regular, personal relationship required
- ABA Formal Ops. 84-351 and 94-388: "associated"/"affiliated" usage and required client disclosure
- N.Y. City 891, 81-3, 81-71, 81-102, 82-28 (modified by this opinion)
See also
- NYC Bar Formal Op. 1995-9: Same Firm Name Across Two Jurisdictions
- ISBA Ethics Op. 736: Similar Law Firm and Lawyer Names
- ISBA Ethics Op. 749: Advertising a Degree and Field of Concentration
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1995 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.