May a surviving partner keep using a firm name that includes a deceased partner's name?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether it is proper for a surviving partner to continue using a firm name that includes the name of a deceased partner.

The Committee concluded that the continued use of a deceased partner's name, when permissible by local custom, is not unethical in and of itself, but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through the use, citing ABA Canon 33 as amended September 30, 1937. As a corollary, it explained that if a local community has a custom whereby the firm name identifies the individual members, so that use of the firm name amounts to a representation that certain individuals are members, the continued use might be misleading and result in deception; in such a case continued use would be improper, citing ABA Opinion No. 6, rendered before Canon 33 and its amendment. The Committee added that even where local custom permits continued use, the surviving partner should be particularly careful to disclose plainly, in all reasonable ways, that the firm name is merely the name under which he is conducting business, including an indication on the firm stationery that one of the partners is deceased.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics and decades before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. Firm names are now governed by the rule on firm names and letterheads (Model Rule 7.5 and its Oklahoma counterpart), which generally permits a continuing use of a deceased partner's name subject to the prohibition on false or misleading communications. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 surviving partner keep the dead partner's name in the firm name?

A: Yes, where local custom permits it. The Committee said that use is not unethical in itself, provided no imposition or deception results.

Q: When would it become improper?

A: Where local custom makes the firm name identify the individual members, so that continued use would misleadingly represent that the deceased is still a member. In that case the Committee said continued use would be improper.

Q: What should the survivor do to avoid deception?

A: Plainly disclose, in all reasonable ways, that the firm name is merely the name under which he conducts business, including indicating on the firm stationery that one partner is deceased.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied ABA Canon 33 (partnership names) as amended September 30, 1937, allowing continued use of a deceased partner's name where local custom permits and no deception results, and relied on ABA Opinion No. 6. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Canon 33 (Canons of Professional Ethics, as amended Sept. 30, 1937): use of partnership names, including a deceased partner's name where local custom permits and no deception results.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion No. 6 (rendered before the adoption of Canon 33 and its amendment).

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 133: Revised professional card in a city directory
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 150: Lawyer paying to publish his own photograph
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 143: Law list of an auto association recommending attorneys

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-152/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted November 30, 1950

QUERY

Is it proper for a surviving partner to continue the use of a firm name which includes that of a deceased partner?

ANSWER

The continued use of the name of a deceased partner when permissible by local custom is not unethical in and of itself, but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. Canon 33 American Bar Association as amended September 30, 1937. A necessary corollary to the foregoing statement is that if in a local community there is a custom whereby a firm name serves to identify the individual members of the firm so that the use of the firm name amounts to a representation that certain individuals are members of the firm, the continued use of the firm name might be misleading and result in deception. In such a case, continued use of the firm name would be improper. See opinion No. 6 American Bar Association rendered prior to the adoption of Canon No. 33 and its amendment.

In this connection, even where local custom permits continued use of such a firm name the surviving partner should be particularly careful to plainly disclose in all reasonable ways that the firm name is merely the name under which he is conducting business. Such steps should include indication on the firm stationery that one of the partners is deceased.