May a law firm call itself 'John Doe and Associates'?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a firm could adopt and use the name "John Doe and Associates." It quoted Canon 33, which provides that in the selection and use of a firm name, no false, misleading, assumed, or trade name should be used.

The committee said that under Canon 33 the American Bar Association had held such a firm name improper, citing Drinker's Legal Ethics. It also quoted the Oregon State Bar's Opinion 39, which said the use of the term "associates" is misleading and that such trade names are undignified and unprofessional for lawyers, and noted the Washington State Bar had taken the same position in March 1955. It concluded that it is improper to use such a firm designation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1955, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The rules on firm names and trade names are stated and applied differently today (for example Rule 7.5/7.1), and the treatment of "and Associates" has changed. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 use the name "John Doe and Associates"?

A: No. The committee concluded the name is improper under Canon 33 because "associates" is misleading and amounts to a trade name.

Q: What rule did the committee rely on?

A: Canon 33, which provides that no false, misleading, assumed, or trade name should be used in the selection and use of a firm name.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted in Oklahoma, governing firm names and trade names, and drew on Drinker's treatise and the Oregon and Washington state bars. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 33 (ABA Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the Oklahoma Bar): no false, misleading, assumed, or trade name should be used in the selection and use of a firm name.

Other opinions cited:

• Oregon State Bar Opinion 39 ("associates" is misleading)
• Washington State Bar (March 1955, same position)

Other authorities:

• Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics, pp. 207, 303 (nos. 373, 374)

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 172: Municipal judge practicing law and the firm name
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 176: "Tax attorney" designation and club rosters
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 152: Keeping a deceased partner's name in the firm name

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-183/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted July 13, 1955

QUERY

Can a firm adopt and use the name of John Doe and Associates?

ANSWER

Canon 33 reads in part:

“… In the selection and use of a firm name, no false, misleading, assumed or trade name should be used …”.

Under the above Canon the American Bar Association has held the use of the above firm name to be improper. See Drinker’s Legal Ethics, pp. 207 and 303, numbers 373 and 374.

The Oregon State Bar Association in its opinion No. 39 said:

“… the use of the term ‘associates’ is misleading … such forms of trade names are undignified and unprofessional for lawyers.”

The Washington State Bar took the same position in March of 1955.

It is improper to use such firm designation.