Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA 2018-11-27

Can a New York lawyer who is also a licensed engineer run both practices in one entity, name the firm after the engineering work, and avoid the Rules for the engineering clients?

Short answer: A lawyer-engineer may run both practices in one entity from one office, but the firm name may not reference the engineering practice. Because engineering is distinct from legal work, the lawyer can keep the Rules from attaching to engineering clients by giving them a written notice that no attorney-client relationship exists.
Currency note: this opinion is from 2018
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked at the bottom of this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1157: Legal and engineering services in one entity

Short answer: A New York lawyer who is also a licensed professional engineer may offer both services through a single entity and office, but the firm name cannot reference the engineering practice; and because engineering is a distinct non-legal service, a written notice that no attorney-client relationship attaches can keep the Rules from governing the engineering work.

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.

About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.

View original opinion

Plain-English summary

The inquirer is a New York attorney and a licensed professional engineer who wants to set up a single-member professional entity offering both legal and engineering services, to reference the engineering credential in the entity's name, and intends to give each client only one of the two services. The committee addresses three questions.

First, may one entity and office provide both legal and non-legal services? Yes. Rule 5.7 expressly contemplates a law firm offering both legal and non-legal services, and the committee cites N.Y. State 933 (2012) (lawyer may run a real-estate brokerage from a law office) as support.

Second, may the entity's name reference the engineering service? No. The firm name is governed by Rule 7.5(b), which bars a private-practice lawyer from using a trade name, a misleading name, or a name containing names other than those of the firm's lawyers. The committee reads the trade-name prohibition broadly, citing N.Y. State 869 (2011) and N.Y. State 861 (2011), and notes that the lawyer may still promote the engineering credential in listings of qualifications and in advertising consistent with Rule 7.1, just not in the firm name.

Third, does the lawyer owe duties to engineering clients to clarify the lawyer's role? Yes, where the recipient could reasonably believe the non-legal services are part of an attorney-client relationship. Rule 5.7(a) makes non-legal services that are not distinct from legal services always subject to the Rules, while distinct non-legal services are subject to the Rules only if the recipient could reasonably believe an attorney-client relationship exists. The committee concludes engineering is distinct from legal work, relying on N.Y. State 1135 (2017) and the integration factors in N.Y. State 1155 (2018), and contrasting services it has held not distinct (state and local tax services, domestic-relations mediation, integrated real-estate services). Under Rule 5.7(a)(4), the lawyer can overcome the presumption of an attorney-client relationship by advising the engineering client in writing that the services are not legal services and that the protections of the attorney-client relationship do not apply. The committee cautions that a lawyer who uses engineering skill within a legal matter (for example, a patent lawyer) may find the services not distinct, in which case the full Rules apply.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer-engineer may combine both practices in one entity and office and may market the engineering credential in qualification listings and advertising that complies with Rule 7.1, but may not put the engineering practice in the firm name, which Rule 7.5(b) limits to lawyers' names. For the engineering side, the committee treats the services as distinct from legal work, so the Rules attach to them only if the client could reasonably believe an attorney-client relationship exists; a written Rule 5.7(a)(4) notice that the engineering work is not legal services and carries no attorney-client protection overcomes that presumption. The committee notes the distinctness analysis can change where engineering skill is deployed inside a legal matter, in which case all the Rules apply.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who is also an engineer run both practices out of one firm and office?

A: Yes. Rule 5.7 contemplates a law firm providing both legal and non-legal services, so one entity may house both a law practice and an engineering practice (Opinion 1157 ¶ 3).

Q: Can the firm's name include the engineering practice or degree?

A: No. Rule 7.5(b) limits a private-practice firm name to the lawyers' names and bars trade names, so the engineering practice cannot appear in the name; the credential may still be promoted in qualification listings and Rule 7.1-compliant advertising (¶¶ 4-5).

Q: Do the ethics rules govern the lawyer's engineering clients?

A: Only if the client could reasonably believe there is an attorney-client relationship. Engineering is distinct from legal services, so a written notice under Rule 5.7(a)(4) that the engineering work is not legal services and carries no attorney-client protection overcomes that presumption (¶¶ 6-9).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 5.7 (Model Rule 5.7) on a lawyer's responsibilities when providing non-legal services, which turns on whether those services are "distinct" from legal services and on the Rule 5.7(a)(4) written-notice mechanism for overcoming the presumption of an attorney-client relationship. It also applies Rule 7.5(b) (Model Rule 7.5) on firm names and the bar on trade names, and Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1) on advertising, which permits truthful promotion of the engineering credential outside the firm name.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • New York Rule 5.7(a) (Model Rule 5.7): responsibilities for non-legal services; distinctness and the written-notice presumption
  • New York Rule 7.5(b) (Model Rule 7.5): firm names; trade-name prohibition
  • New York Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1): lawyer advertising

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 1155 (2018): integration factors for whether non-legal services are distinct
  • N.Y. State 1152 (2018): public expectation that a firm name reflects lawyers' surnames
  • N.Y. State 1135 (2017): state and local tax services not distinct from legal services
  • N.Y. State 1026 (2014): domestic-relations mediation not distinct
  • N.Y. State 1015 (2014): integrated real-estate services not distinct
  • N.Y. State 933 (2012): lawyer may operate a real-estate brokerage from a law office
  • N.Y. State 869 (2011): practice area may not appear in a firm name
  • N.Y. State 861 (2011): initials signifying a practice area are an impermissible trade name

See also

Source