Can a law firm announce that it is the 'successor' to a lawyer who left practice to become a judge?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a law firm may publish an announcement that it is the "successor" to a lawyer who retired from practice upon his election as a judge. It concluded that such an announcement, which purports to tell the public the firm has assumed the judge's practice, would be distributed to clients and prospective clients as a form of advertising clearly proscribed by DR 2-101(A) and (B).

Beyond the advertising problem, the committee found that the announcement's apparent purpose was to signal the firm's relationship to the judge, making it an indirect solicitation of legal business in violation of EC 2-9, with the mere appearance of impropriety to be avoided under Canon 9. The committee saw no valid purpose for stating that the firm was successor to the retiring judge's practice other than to advertise the firm's availability to the judge's former clients or to notify those clients of the firm's relationship to a judge sitting in the county where the firm practices.

The committee noted that clients for whom the firm had already received formal substitutions need not receive any announcement, and that the proposed words "successor to the firm of," even with restricted circulation to the judge's clients and former clients, still constituted improper solicitation. It pointed to EC 4-6 for the procedures a lawyer retiring from practice should follow regarding present clients and the disposition of their files.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009, and before the lawyer-advertising landscape was reshaped by Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and later decisions; lawyer advertising and solicitation are now governed by Rules 7.1 and 7.3. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a firm say it is the "successor" to a lawyer who became a judge?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee held the announcement is prohibited advertising under DR 2-101 and an indirect solicitation under EC 2-9.

Q: Does limiting the mailing to the judge's former clients make it acceptable?

A: No. Per the opinion, even restricted circulation to the judge's clients and former clients still amounted to improper solicitation.

Q: What about clients the firm already formally took over?

A: The committee said clients for whom the firm had already received substitutions need not receive any such announcement.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the then-current advertising and solicitation provisions, DR 2-101(A) and (B) and EC 2-9, together with Canon 9 and the file-handling guidance in EC 4-6. The current New York analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.3 (solicitation of clients).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.3 (solicitation of clients)
• NY Canon 9; EC 2-9, 4-6; DR 2-101(A), (B)

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. City 735 (1949): improper to announce oneself as "successor to the practice of" another lawyer
• N.Y. State 164 (1970); N.Y. State 284 (1973): announcements and indirect solicitation

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 411: Announcements to former-firm clients
• NY State Bar Op. 379: Soliciting speaking engagements before lay groups
• NY State Bar Op. 403: Telephone-directory listing content

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-382/