Can a law firm's name-change announcement say the change was prompted by a partner becoming a judge?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a law firm may include, in an announcement of its change of name, a reference to the fact that the change was occasioned by one of its partners assuming judicial office. It concluded the reference would not be improper.

The committee relied on DR 2-102(A)(2), which permits dignified announcements stating new or changed associations or addresses, change of firm name, or similar matters pertaining to the professional office of a lawyer or law firm, mailed to lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends, and relatives. It held that stating a resigning partner had assumed judicial office comported with long-standing tradition and was not improper, because it served to provide useful information about the reason for the firm's name change.

The committee explained that DR 2-102(B), which bars a lawyer who assumes public office from permitting his name to remain in the firm name or in professional notices during any significant period when he is not actively and regularly practicing law with the firm, was inapposite. The proposed notice addressed a change in firm name and reflected that the resigning partner, because of his assumption of public office, would no longer be involved in the practice. The committee noted that the evident purpose of DR 2-102(B) is to prevent a firm from creating the impression that it continues to enjoy the services of a public official who is not in fact actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1977, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (lawyer communications and firm names are now governed by Rule 7.1 and Rule 7.5). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 explain in its announcement why it changed its name?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held DR 2-102(A)(2) permits a dignified change-of-name announcement, and noting that a partner left for judicial office gives useful information about the reason.

Q: Doesn't the rule about public officials in firm names bar this?

A: No. The committee held DR 2-102(B) was inapposite because the announcement reported a name change reflecting that the partner had left the practice, not the retention of a sitting official's name in the firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies DR 2-102(A)(2) (permitted dignified announcements of changes in firm name and associations) and DR 2-102(B) (barring a public official's name from remaining in a firm name when he is not actively practicing). The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 1095: Updating advertising after a firm name change
• NY State Bar Op. 1028: Firm name, letterhead, and business card designations
• NY State Bar Op. 1204: Letterhead listing a purchased retired lawyer's former office

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-459/