Can a single law firm market itself under two different assumed names (d/b/a) for two separate practice areas?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer's firm is developing a new practice area that differs substantially from its existing work. To keep the two practices separate and to build distinct branding, the firm wants to operate each practice area under its own assumed name (d/b/a), each with its own marketing materials and website. The firm name would be disclosed wherever the assumed names are posted or published.

The opinion grounds its analysis in the June 24, 2020 amendment to Rule 7.5(b), which permits lawyers to practice under trade names that are not false, deceptive, or misleading. The committee traces its prior applications of the amended rule: N.Y. State 1207 ¶ 5 (2020) approved practicing under a trade name that is not the name of any lawyer in the firm, and N.Y. State 1226 ¶ 9 (2021) approved using a domain name different from the firm's name, while cautioning that particular circumstances could still run afoul of Rule 7.5(b).

Applying that reasoning, the committee finds nothing inherently false, deceptive, or misleading in a single firm using two separate assumed names to market itself in two distinct practice areas. It notes the conclusion is fact-dependent, and that different facts could produce a different result, but on the facts presented, especially given the firm's commitment to disclose its full name wherever the assumed names appear, the two d/b/a names do not violate Rule 7.5(b).

In practice

Under this opinion, a New York firm may market separate practice areas under two different assumed names so long as the use is not false, deceptive, or misleading and the firm discloses its full name wherever an assumed name is posted or published. Per the opinion, the analysis is fact-specific: the committee approved the arrangement on these facts but expressly noted that other facts and circumstances could lead it to a different conclusion.

Common questions

Q: May a New York law firm use more than one trade name or d/b/a?

A: Per the opinion, yes; a firm may operate under two assumed names that distinguish separate practice areas, provided the use is not false, deceptive, or misleading under Rule 7.5(b).

Q: Does the firm have to disclose its real name when using an assumed name?

A: The opinion treats disclosure of the firm's full name wherever the assumed names are posted or published as a fact supporting its conclusion that the arrangement is not misleading.

Q: Is the approval absolute?

A: No. Per the opinion, the conclusion is fact-specific; the committee notes that particular facts and circumstances in a different case could make the use of two assumed names false, deceptive, or misleading.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule 7.5(b), which the New York courts amended effective June 24, 2020 to permit practice under trade names that are not false, deceptive, or misleading. The governing standard for any firm name or trade name is the general advertising prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading communications, reflected in Rule 7.1. These 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) (trade names)
• ABA Model Rules 7.5, 7.1 (analogues)

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 1207 ¶ 5 (2020): practicing under a trade name that is not a lawyer's name
• N.Y. State 1226 ¶ 9 (2021): using a domain name different from the firm name

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 1241: Out-of-State Office Letterhead
• CA COPRAC Op. 2004-167: Firm Trade Names and Government Titles
• ABA Formal Op. 507: Office Sharing Arrangements

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1235/