Can a group of private lawyers practice under a trade name like 'Community Law Office'?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether three lawyers could open a law office under the name "Community Law Office." It concluded they could not.

The committee quoted EC 2-11, which warns that a trade name could mislead laymen about the identity, responsibility, and status of those practicing under it, and directs that a lawyer in private practice use only his own name, an employing lawyer's name, a partnership name composed of one or more of the partners, or a professional legal corporation name where permitted. It also quoted DR 2-102(B), which forbids a lawyer in private practice from practicing under a trade name, a name misleading as to identity, or a firm name containing names other than the lawyers in the firm. Both derive from former Canon 33's bar on false, misleading, assumed, or trade names.

The committee cited ABA 318 (1967), which had disapproved names such as "Legal Bureau," "Legal Clinic," and "Northern Law Clinic" as trade names, and found the Code equally proscriptive. It added a specific concern: offices staffed by the Legal Aid Society and volunteer lawyers in New York City already operate under the name "Community Law Office," so the term connotes an indefinite tie to the community or the use of volunteer lawyers serving the underprivileged, which could mislead laymen about the identity, responsibility, and status of those practicing under it. The proposed use would therefore contravene EC 2-11 and could not be deemed proper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1976, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (firm names and letterhead are now governed by Rule 7.5 and misleading communications by Rule 7.1). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis; New York now permits lawyers to practice under certain trade names under current Rule 7.5, so the categorical bar described here no longer states current law. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could private lawyers in 1976 practice as "Community Law Office"?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee held the name is a trade name that could mislead the public about the identity and status of those practicing under it, contrary to EC 2-11 and DR 2-102(B).

Q: Why was this particular name a problem?

A: Per the opinion, "Community Law Office" was already the name used by Legal Aid Society and volunteer-lawyer offices in New York City, so it connoted a community tie or service to the underprivileged that could mislead laymen about who was actually practicing.

Q: Did the rule bar all trade names, or just this one?

A: The committee read EC 2-11 and DR 2-102(B), following ABA 318 (1967), to bar trade names generally for private practitioners, citing prior disapproval of names like "Legal Bureau" and "Legal Clinic."

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies EC 2-11 and DR 2-102(B) of the then-current New York Code, both descended from former Canon 33, which together barred private practitioners from using trade or misleading names. The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and Rule 7.1 (prohibition on false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• NY EC 2-11; DR 2-102(B)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA 318 (1967): trade names such as "Legal Bureau" and "Legal Clinic" are inappropriate under former Canon 33

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 452: A bar association's consumer legal directory
• NY State Bar Op. 1075: A trade name for a business coaching lawyers
• NY State Bar Op. 1107: Using "Legal Services" in a law firm name

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-445/