May a lawyer who employs one or more other lawyers practice under a name using the word 'Associates' after his own name, such as 'John Doe and Associates'?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer who employs one or more other lawyers may practice under a name using the word "Associates" after his own name. It applied DR 2-102(B), which bars a private practitioner from practicing under a trade name, a name misleading as to the identity of the lawyers, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more lawyers in the firm (with exceptions for professional-corporation designations and deceased or retired members).

The committee noted that under the predecessor provision (Canon 33), its Advisory Opinion No. 183 (1955) had held the name "John Doe and Associates" improper, but that the authorities behind that conclusion had since been clarified and to some extent superseded by ABA Formal Opinion 318 (1967), supplementing ABA Formal Opinion 310 (1963). ABA Opinion 318 held that using "associates" after the names of one or more members of a professional organization is a proper way to indicate the limited responsibility of the organization's members.

The committee set out the current status under ABA Opinions 310 and 318: (1) "John Doe and Associates" is not proper if the organization has any partners or owners other than John Doe, because "associates" implies the designated professionals are employees, not partners or owners; (2) the name may be used where a sole practitioner employs other attorneys to conduct part of his legal business; and (3) "Doe & Roe and Associates" may be used where the only partners or owners are Doe and Roe but they employ other lawyers, while additional partners would make that form misleading unless the letterhead clearly indicates all partners and, separately, the associates. Subject to compliance with those guidelines, the committee superseded Advisory Opinion No. 183.

In practice

Under this opinion, "John Doe and Associates" is permissible when a sole practitioner employs other attorneys, and "Doe & Roe and Associates" when Doe and Roe are the only partners or owners employing other lawyers. Per the opinion, the name is improper where there are partners or owners not named, because "associates" signals employees rather than partners; where additional partners exist, the letterhead must clearly separate the names of all partners from the names of the associates.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975 under the Code of Professional Responsibility, before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The firm-name rules have since been recast (compare Model Rule 7.5, now largely folded into Model Rule 7.1), and lawyer-name restrictions were also affected by the Bates line of commercial-speech decisions. 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 solo lawyer who employs associates call the firm "John Doe and Associates"?

A: Yes. The committee held the name may be used where a sole practitioner employs other attorneys to conduct a portion of his legal business.

Q: When is "John Doe and Associates" improper?

A: When the organization has partners or owners other than John Doe, because the term "associates" implies the designated professionals are employees rather than partners or owners.

Q: Can a two-partner firm use "Doe & Roe and Associates"?

A: Yes, where Doe and Roe are the only partners or owners but employ other lawyers; if there are additional partners, the letterhead must clearly indicate all partners and, separately, the associates.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted DR 2-102(B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (firm names and misleading names), following ABA Formal Opinions 310 (1963) and 318 (1967), and superseded the earlier Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 183 (1955). It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102(B) (Code of Professional Responsibility): a private practitioner shall not practice under a trade name or a name misleading as to the identity of the lawyers in the firm.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinions 310 (1963) and 318 (1967); OBA Advisory Opinion No. 183 (1955, superseded).

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 183: The firm name "John Doe and Associates"
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 21: A firm name holding out a salaried lawyer as a partner
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 283: A professional corporation as a partner in a law firm

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-288/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 21, 1975

INQUIRY

May a lawyer who employes [sic] one or more other lawyers properly practice under a name which uses the term “Associates” following his own name?

OPINION

The applicable Disciplinary Rule is DR 2-102(B), which is, in pertinent part, as follows:

“A lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that the name of a professional corporation or professional association may contain ‘P.C.’ or ‘P.A.’ or similar symbols indicating the nature of the organization, and if otherwise lawful a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession.”

Under the predecessor of this provision (Canon 33), Advisory Opinion No. 183 (July 13, 1955) of the Oklahoma Bar Association (appearing in the Advisory Opinions Supplement to Okla. Decisions 341-43 P.2d, at 150) held that the use of the name “John Doe and Associates” would be improper. However, the authorities cited in support of this conclusion have since been clarified and to some extent superseded by American Bar Association (ABA) Formal Opinion 318 (July 3, 1967), supplementing ABA Formal Opinion 310 (June 20, 1963). Opinion 318 (Part III) holds that “the use of the term ‘associates’ following the name of one or more members of a professional corporation or association is a proper method of indicating the limited responsibility of the members of such an organization.”

The present status of the question thus appears to be as follows, under ABA Opinions 310 and 318:

1. “John Doe and Associates” is not proper if the organization has any partners (or owners, in the case of a professional corporation) other than John Doe, because the term “associates” implies the professionals so designated are employees, not partners or owners.

2. “John Doe and Associates” may be used where a sole practitioner employs other attorneys to conduct a portion of his legal business.

3. “Doe & Roe and Associates” may be used where the only partners (or owners) are Doe and Roe, but they employ other lawyers to assist in carrying on the firm’s business. If there are additional partners (or owners), the use of this form would be misleading unless the letterhead clearly indicates all of the partners and, separately, the names of the associates.

Subject to compliance by lawyers with the foregoing guidelines, Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 183 is hereby superseded.