Can an Ohio lawyer practice in two separate law firms or legal professional associations at the same time?
Ohio BPC Opinion 89-035: Practicing With More Than One Law Firm
Short answer: The Board concluded that a lawyer should not practice with more than one law practice in Ohio at the same time.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Plain-English summary
The Board addressed whether an attorney could belong to two separate law practices in Ohio, where the lawyer proposed forming a separate partnership limited to handling personal injury cases while each partner kept an individual practice in the same county.
The Board looked first to Governing Bar Rule III §3(D), which it read to provide that no attorney shall be associated in any capacity with a legal professional association other than the one with which the lawyer is actively and publicly associated. It noted that the Code of Professional Responsibility did not address the issue directly but that practicing in more than one law office raises potential ethical problems, citing a Maryland State Bar opinion. The Board identified three concerns: a lawyer practicing in two firms is potentially misleading and confusing to the public (DR 2-101); the arrangement creates the potential for disclosure of confidential information between firms (DR 4-101(B)); and multiple firm membership may increase conflicts of interest (Canon 5).
The Board also pointed to the duty of professional independence under EC 5-13 and EC 5-24, reasoning that a lawyer maintaining two separate practices may have difficulty exercising professional judgment solely for the benefit of a client and free from outside influences. It concluded that a lawyer should not practice with more than one law practice in Ohio at the same time.
Currency note
The Board withdrew this opinion by Opinion 2013-1 on April 4, 2013. It issued in 1989 under Ohio's former Code of Professional Responsibility (superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007), with subsequent amendments to Gov. Bar R. III effective January 1, 1993 and November 1, 1995. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Government of the Bar Rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Could an Ohio lawyer belong to two firms at once under this opinion?
A: No. The Board concluded that a lawyer should not practice with more than one law practice in Ohio at the same time.
Q: What concerns drove that conclusion?
A: The Board pointed to the risk of misleading the public (DR 2-101), the potential disclosure of confidences between firms (DR 4-101(B)), increased conflicts of interest (Canon 5), and impaired professional independence (EC 5-13, EC 5-24).
Q: Did the rule against dual association come from the Code of Professional Responsibility?
A: The Board located the direct restriction in Governing Bar Rule III §3(D); it noted the Code did not address the issue directly but supplied the supporting ethical concerns.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Governing Bar Rule III §3(D) (association with a legal professional association) together with the former Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 2-101 (misleading communications), DR 4-101(B) (preserving client confidences), Canon 5 and EC 5-1, EC 5-13, and EC 5-24 (exercising independent professional judgment).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Responsibility and Bar Rules (Ohio, former):
- Gov. Bar R. III §3(D), association with a legal professional association
- DR 2-101, misleading communications
- DR 4-101(B), preserving client confidences and secrets
- Canon 5; EC 5-1, EC 5-13, EC 5-24, independent professional judgment
Other opinions cited:
- Maryland State Bar Association Committee on Ethics, Op. 88-45 (1988): ethical problems of practicing in more than one office
See also
- Ohio BPC Op. 1989-005: Office-Sharing Lawyers on Opposing Sides of a Divorce
- Ohio BPC Op. 1989-036: Office Sharing and Common Letterhead Disclaimers
- Ohio BPC Op. 1988-019: Firm Name Implying a Partnership Not in Fact
- Ohio BPC Op. 1989-031: Lawyer Employed by a CPA Firm
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op_89-035.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 89-35
Issued December 15, 1989
WITHDRAWN BY OPINION 2013-1 ON APRIL 4, 2013
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
[Not Current-subsequent rule amendments to Gov. Bar R. III, eff. Jan. 1, 1993 and Nov. 1, 1995.]
SYLLABUS: An attorney at law may not practice with more than one legal professional association or law firm in Ohio at the same time.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on whether an attorney can belong to two separate law practices in Ohio. You propose forming a separate legal partnership for the limited purpose of handling personal injury cases. Each attorney in the partnership would maintain his or her individual practice within the same county.
The propriety of belonging to two separate law practices is addressed in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar. Governing Bar Rule III, §3 (D) states that no attorney shall be associated in any capacity with a legal professional association other than one with which he is actively and publicly associated. The Code of Professional Responsibility does not address this issue directly. However, the concept of practicing in more than one law office raises many potential ethical problems. Maryland St. Bar Assn. Committee on Ethics, Op. 88-45 (1988). These ethical problems are magnified by the location of the proposed partnership and existing practices of these attorneys, all within the same county.
A lawyer practicing in two firms is potentially misleading and may be confusing to the public. Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-101. This situation would also create the potential for the disclosure of confidential information between the various firms and lawyers. Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 4-101(B). Multiple firm membership may also increase the number of conflicts of interest for the attorneys involved. See, Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 5. Complying with these ethical standards would be difficult for a lawyer practicing in two partnerships in the same area.
An attorney must maintain his or her professional independence under EC 5-13 and 5-24 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer who maintains two separate law practices may have difficulty exercising his or her professional judgment solely for the benefit of a client and free from outside influences. See, e.g., Code of Professional Responsibility EC 5-1, 5-13.
Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion, and you are so advised, that a lawyer should not practice with more than one law practice in Ohio at the same time.
This is an informal non-binding advisory opinion based only upon the facts presented and limited to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.