Can a New York firm list a foreign correspondent or associated firm on its letterhead?

Plain-English summary

The committee considered a New York firm and a French firm that agreed to serve as each other's "associate" or "correspondent," each representing the other's clients and providing office services in its own jurisdiction, with no member a partner or associate of the other firm. The committee declined to pass on whether the underlying arrangement itself was proper, but flagged the implications of DR 2-103(B) and (C) and Judiciary Law section 479, and cautioned that any fee division must comply with DR 2-107, referrals must go only to competent counsel (EC 6-4), and conflicts must be avoided (DR 5-105(A)).

On the letterhead question, the committee recalled that before Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), New York opinions flatly barred listing a foreign correspondent firm (for example N.Y. State 262 (1972)). After Bates, lawyers may advertise in any reasonable manner that is not false, misleading, or deceptive under DR 2-101. The committee treated a letterhead listing as advertising and asked whether the specific terms would mislead under DR 2-101(A).

It concluded the listing was impermissible. The terms "correspondent," "associated," and "affiliated" have no generally accepted meaning in the profession or to the public: listing only an address implies a branch with resident partners, "associated" and "affiliated" imply common partners, and "office" implies a branch (curable by using "firm"). A layman could reasonably assume the New York firm bears responsibility for the foreign firm's services or that all French matters would be routed there, yet the propriety concerns about the relationship itself prevent the New York firm from committing to a referral before learning the facts. Absent a settled legal meaning of "correspondent" or an accompanying detailed explanation, the listing has the capacity to deceive. The question was answered in the negative, without reaching whether the terms could be used in a brochure or legal directory with a full explanation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (the bar on false or misleading communications now appears at Rule 7.1 and firm-name and letterhead standards at Rule 7.5). New York's advertising rules have changed since this opinion. 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 New York firm put a foreign "correspondent" firm on its letterhead?

A: No. The committee held the term is misleading under DR 2-101(A) because it has no settled meaning, absent a detailed accompanying explanation.

Q: Why are "associated" and "affiliated" treated as misleading?

A: The committee said those terms imply that the two firms share common partners or associates, which was not the case in the described arrangement.

Q: Could the terms ever be used?

A: The opinion left open whether they could appear in an office brochure or a legal directory where the relationship is fully explained; it decided only the letterhead question.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101 (advertising), DR 2-103(B) and (C) and DR 2-107 (recommendation and division of fees), DR 5-105(A) (conflicts), and EC 6-4 (referral to competent counsel) to a letterhead listing of a foreign correspondent firm. The closest current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications concerning 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 2-101, DR 2-103(B), DR 2-103(C), DR 2-107, DR 5-105(A), EC 6-4

Statutes:

• N.Y. Judiciary Law section 479 (solicitation)

Cases:

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

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 262 (1972): pre-Bates bar on listing a foreign correspondent firm
• ABA Inf. 1189 (1971): use of such terms with explanation

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 542: British law firm opening a New York office
• NY State Bar Op. 546: Listing a branch office on letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-538/