Can a law firm list nonlawyer employees such as registered patent agents and paralegals on its letterhead?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a law firm may list certain nonlawyer employees, such as registered patent agents and paralegals, on its letterhead. It answered yes, subject to qualifications, and overruled an earlier opinion in part.

The committee explained that before the recent amendments, DR 2-102(A)(4) and former Canon 27 rigidly limited what a letterhead could show, doing more than barring untruthful information; they set a standard of professional dignity thought to bolster public confidence. Under that standard, listing nonlawyer employees was prohibited (citing N.Y. State 261 (1972) on paralegals and a line of county, city, and ABA opinions). The 1978 amendments adopted in light of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), brought what the committee called a "revolutionary shift" toward disseminating information "designed to educate the public to an awareness of legal needs and to provide information relevant to the selection of the most appropriate counsel" (DR 2-101(D), as amended). Rules that had restricted such information mainly for reasons of dignity and etiquette were repealed or modified, leaving the chief limit that letterhead information be "in accordance with DR 2-101," whose key standards (DR 2-101(A), (B), (D)) bar false, deceptive, or misleading statements, puffery, self-laudation, and unverifiable quality claims.

Applying that framework, the committee concluded a firm may include the names of nonlawyer employees on its letterhead whenever doing so would not be deceptive and might reasonably supply information relevant to selecting counsel. Nonlawyer status no longer precludes the listing, but the name must be accompanied by language making the nonlawyer status clear: "registered patent agent" should be qualified by a designation such as "non-lawyer," while the term "paralegal" is by itself sufficient to convey nonlawyer status. Even then, such persons should be listed only where their nonlawyer status is relevant to the firm's work, to avoid deception. The committee overruled N.Y. State 261 to the extent it was inconsistent, and answered the question in the affirmative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1978, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (firm names and letterheads are now addressed in Rule 7.5, and the general bar on false or misleading communications in Rule 7.1). 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: Could a firm put a paralegal's or patent agent's name on its letterhead?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held the post-Bates amendments allow listing nonlawyer employees where it is relevant to selecting counsel and not deceptive.

Q: How must the nonlawyer be identified?

A: Clearly as a nonlawyer. The committee said "registered patent agent" needs a qualifier such as "non-lawyer," while "paralegal" alone adequately signals nonlawyer status.

Q: Did this change the prior rule?

A: Yes. The committee overruled N.Y. State 261 (1972) to the extent it had barred listing nonlawyer employees like paralegals on a firm letterhead.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the amended Canon 2, principally DR 2-101(A), (B), and (D) (the post-Bates advertising standard) and DR 2-102(A)(4) (letterhead contents), against the now-repealed dignity-based limits of former Canon 27 and EC 2-9 and EC 2-10. The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and Rule 7.1 (communications concerning 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 Canon 2; EC 2-9, EC 2-10; DR 2-101(A), (B), (D); DR 2-102(A)(4)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), constitutional protection for lawyer advertising

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 261 (1972): the prior bar on listing paralegals, overruled in part
• N.Y. State 487 (1978): the post-Bates liberalization of New York's Canon 2

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 538: Listing a correspondent firm on letterhead
• NY State Bar Op. 546: Branch office on a firm letterhead
• NY State Bar Op. 505: Publicizing the opening of a law office

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-500/