Can separate, independent law firms form a PLLC and market themselves jointly as members of 'ABC Law Group PLLC' when they do not actually practice law together?
NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1220: Falsely Advertising a Partnership Among Law Firms
Short answer: The opinion concludes that separate, independent law firms may not form a PLLC and hold themselves out as members of "ABC Law Group PLLC," because the name would be a false, deceptive, or misleading trade name that falsely implies the firms practice law together.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association's view of New York's 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.
Plain-English summary
Several separate, independent law firms proposed to join a professional limited liability company called "ABC Law Group PLLC." The PLLC would run a website describing the group's services and profiling each member firm, with links out to each firm's own site. Each firm would keep its own letterhead (adding "Member Law Firm" under the ABC mark), sign its own engagement letters, and do its own billing; the PLLC itself would not engage clients or perform legal work. The inquirer asked whether the name was permissible and whether the arrangement would make the firms a single "law firm" for conflict purposes.
The opinion holds the name is not permissible. Under Rule 7.5(b), as amended effective June 24, 2020, lawyers may practice under a trade name only if it is not false, deceptive, or misleading. The committee found no problem with "ABC" standing alone, but the combination of "Law Group" and "PLLC" is the defect: Limited Liability Company Law §1203(b) requires every member of a PLLC to be an individual licensed in New York who practices the profession within the PLLC. So "ABC Law Group PLLC" necessarily implies the members are associated to practice law together, which the inquiry makes clear is not the case. That implication violates Rule 7.5(b)(1) (false, deceptive, or misleading trade name) and 7.5(b)(3) (name misleading as to the identity of the lawyers practicing under it).
The opinion adds that Rule 7.5(c) bars lawyers from holding themselves out as partners unless they are in fact partners, and Comment [5] to Rule 7.5 extends that to firms claiming affiliation with other firms that is not a fact. Recharacterizing the PLLC as a joint-advertising vehicle would not save it, because Rule 7.1(c)(2) separately forbids advertisements that portray a fictitious firm or imply lawyers are associated in a firm when they are not. Having found the name impermissible, the committee declined to reach whether the association would be treated as a single firm for conflicts, but noted that some inter-firm associations are deemed a single firm requiring all members to clear conflicts across all firms (citing N.Y. State 876 and N.Y. City 2000-4).
In practice
Under this opinion, separate New York law firms may not adopt a shared "Law Group PLLC" name for joint marketing when they do not actually practice law together inside that entity, because the name implies an association in the practice of law that does not exist (Rules 7.5(b), 7.5(c), 7.1(c)(2)). Per the opinion, the same conclusion holds whether the entity is framed as a practice vehicle or merely as joint advertising. The committee declined to decide whether such an association would be treated as a single firm for conflict-checking, but flagged that some inter-firm associations are.
Common questions
Q: Can separate firms use a joint "Law Group PLLC" name for a shared website and marketing?
A: No. Per the opinion, "Law Group" plus "PLLC" implies the members are associated to practice law within the entity; when they are not, the name is false and misleading under Rule 7.5(b).
Q: Does it help to call it joint advertising rather than a real firm?
A: No. Per the opinion, Rule 7.1(c)(2) independently forbids advertising that uses a fictitious name or implies lawyers are associated in a firm when they are not.
Q: Did the committee decide whether the member firms become one firm for conflicts?
A: No. The committee declined to reach that question, but noted that some forms of inter-firm association are treated as a single firm, requiring all members to check conflicts across all the firms (N.Y. State 876; N.Y. City 2000-4).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets New York Rule 7.5(b) (trade names that are false, deceptive, or misleading, and names misleading as to the identity of the lawyers), Rule 7.5(c) (holding out as partners), and Rule 7.1(c)(2) (advertising that portrays a fictitious firm), with the definition of "firm" in Rule 1.0(h) and Comment [5] to Rule 7.5. It also references Limited Liability Company Law §1203(b). These rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 7.5 and 7.1.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York Rules of Professional Conduct 7.5(b)(1) and (b)(3), 7.5(c) and Cmt. [5], 7.1(c)(2), 1.0(h)
- ABA Model Rules 7.5, 7.1 (analogues)
Statutes:
- N.Y. Limited Liability Company Law §1203(b) (PLLC members must be licensed individuals who practice within the PLLC)
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 1207 (2020): trade names permitted if not false, deceptive, or misleading
- N.Y. State 876 (2011): conflicts imputed across all firms a lawyer is associated with
- N.Y. City 82-44 (1982); N.Y. City 2000-4 (2000): shared designations and affiliated-firm conflict clearing
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 1233: "and Associates" in a Solo Firm Name
- NY State Bar Op. 1235: A Law Firm Operating Under Two Assumed Names
- NY State Bar Op. 1226: Domain Name Different From the Firm Name
- ABA Formal Op. 507: Office Sharing Arrangements
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1220/