After a senior partner left the firm to take a quasi-judicial public office, could the firm keep his name in the firm name and on its stationery?

Plain-English summary

A firm, "Smith, Jones and Smith," asked whether it could continue under that name after its senior member, Mr. Smith, left the firm the day before taking the oath for a high public office and retained no further connection to the firm. It asked whether his name should remain on the stationery, and if removed, whether the firm could still use the name "Smith, Jones and Smith."

The Board concluded it was improper both to continue the practice under the firm name and to carry the senior Mr. Smith's name on the stationery. It noted that the office the former partner held was quasi-judicial in nature and that members of the bar, including his former partners, had the privilege of appearing before that tribunal. On that basis it held that Rule 35 interdicted the use of the former partner's name in the firm name.

The Board added that use of the name on the stationery was too susceptible of misconstruction as to motive, and that the impression given to the public would not be conducive to the honor and dignity of the profession. It invoked Rule 31's duty to uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the profession and the duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety, quoting Advisory Opinion No. 54 (June 1933 Bar Journal). The Board also cited ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion No. 6 (50 A.B.A. Reports 509) and the New York County Lawyers Association answer to Question 67, which held it improper to continue under a firm name containing the name of a former partner elected to the bench.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1934, 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 The rules cited here, Rules 35 and 31, belong to that superseded canon-era code. Modern firm-name rules treat the use of a public official's name differently in some respects. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 keep a partner's name after he became a quasi-judicial officer?

A: No. The opinion held that Rule 35 interdicted the use of the former partner's name in the firm name because the firm could appear before the quasi-judicial tribunal on which he now sat.

Q: Could the firm at least keep his name on the stationery?

A: No. The Board found that use was too susceptible of misconstruction as to motive and would not be conducive to the honor and dignity of the profession.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 35 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, governing firm names and the continued use of a former partner's name, and Rule 31, the duty to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession and avoid the appearance of impropriety. Both were drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 35 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): interdicting the use of a former partner's name in the firm name where he holds the quasi-judicial office described.
• Rule 31 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): the duty to uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the profession.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Opinion No. 6 (50 A.B.A. Reports 509).
• New York County Lawyers Association, answer to Question 67: improper to continue under a firm name containing a former partner elected to the bench.
• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 54 (June 1933 Bar Journal).

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 78: Law partner serving as Conciliation Commissioner
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 74: Lawyer business cards in a newspaper column

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-77/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted September 21, 1934

The Board is in receipt of the following request for an opinion:

"Mr. Smith, the senior member of our firm, Smith, Jones, and Smith, has been appointed a member of ………… (a high public office) has accepted the appointment and is now serving. He ceased to be a member of our law firm the day preceding the date he took his oath of office. He has no further connection or interest in the law firm's business.

We are still operating under the name of Smith, Jones and Smith. Is this permissible under the rules of professional conduct of The State Bar?

Should we carry his name on our stationery, and, if so, in what manner? If we should take his name off our stationery, could we still practice under the firm name of Smith, Jones and Smith?"

In response:

The Board is of the opinion, under the circumstances detailed, that it is improper

(a) To continue the practice under the firm name of Smith, Jones and Smith; or

(b) To carry the name of Mr. Smith, the senior, on the firm stationery.

The Board takes notice of the fact that the office now held by the former partner is quasi judicial in its nature, and that members of the bar, including the members of his former partnership have the privilege of appearing before the tribunal of which the former partner is a member. It therefore holds that Rule 35 interdicts the use of the name of the former partner in the firm name.

See on the general subject, Opinion No. 6 A.B.A. Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances Vol. 50 A.B.A. Reports 509; And Answer to Question 67, given by the Committee on Professional Ethics of the New York County Lawyers Association wherein it is held that "it is improper for lawyers to continue under a firm name which contains the name of a former partner who has been elected to the bench."

The use of the senior Mr. Smith's name on the firm stationery is too susceptible of misconstruction as to the motive therefor. The impression given to the public generally by the use of the name of the former partner in the firm name would not be one conducive to the honor and dignity of the profession. Rule 31 of the Rules of Professional Conduct enjoins upon a member of The State Bar the duty to "strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession"; and, as we frequently have had occasion to observe, it is the duty of a member of The State Bar, not only to avoid all impropriety, but also to avoid all appearance of impropriety.

In conclusion, as said in Advisory Opinion No. 54 (June 1933 Bar Journal) "a member of The State Bar should refrain from creating a condition, regardless of express prohibition, which might tend to bring reproach upon the profession."