Ezel / Ethics Opinions / OSB

Can an Oregon law firm and an out-of-state firm list each other as an 'Associated Office' on their letterhead?

Short answer Yes. An Oregon firm may list a Washington firm it works with as an 'Associated Office,' and may let the Washington firm do the same, because the designation is not false or misleading under RPC 7.1 and 7.5 when it reflects the actual close, ongoing relationship; if individual lawyers are listed, their jurisdictional limits must be shown.
Bar
OSB
Issued
2005
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2005. Ask about yours and see what the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2005
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

An Oregon law firm contracts with a Washington law firm to represent the Washington firm's clients in Oregon state and federal litigation when permissible. The Oregon firm wants stationery with its own name and address at the top and, at the bottom, "ASSOCIATED OFFICE: Washington Law Firm, [address and telephone]." The Washington firm wants to list the Oregon firm the same way. The opinion asks whether each may do so and answers yes to both.

The opinion applies Oregon RPC 7.1, which bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, and Oregon RPC 7.5(a), which bars firm names and designations that violate RPC 7.1. Drawing on ABA Formal Ethics Opinion No. 84-351, the opinion explains that designating another firm as "affiliated" or "associated" is not misleading if the relationship matches the plain meaning readers would ascribe to those words: a firm that is closely associated in an ongoing, regular relationship, available to the other firm and its clients for consultation and advice, not merely a forwarder-receiver of business.

Because the "Associated Office" designation here reflects that kind of relationship, the opinion concludes it is not false or misleading and complies with Oregon RPC 7.1 and 7.5. Since the comparable Washington rule (Washington RPC 7.5) is to the same effect, the opinion does not reach problems that would arise if the Oregon firm's practice caused the Washington firm to violate Washington's rules.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Oregon rules as they stood at the time, an "Associated Office" cross-listing between firms in different states is permitted when the designation accurately reflects a close and ongoing working relationship. The opinion adds one qualification in a footnote: if the letterhead lists the individual lawyers as "associated," in addition to or instead of the firm names, the jurisdiction in which each lawyer is licensed must be shown so the letterhead is not misleading, citing Oregon RPC 7.5(b) and 8.4(a)(3). Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 7.1, 7.5, and 8.4 before relying on any specific point.

Common questions

Q: Can an Oregon firm list an out-of-state firm it works with as an "Associated Office" on its letterhead?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes the designation is not false or misleading under Oregon RPC 7.1 and 7.5 when it reflects the firms' actual close, ongoing relationship.

Q: What kind of relationship justifies an "associated" or "affiliated" label?

A: Per the opinion, citing ABA Formal Op. 84-351, the relationship must be close and regular, continuing and semi-permanent, with the firm available for consultation and advice, not merely a forwarder-receiver of legal business.

Q: Does the letterhead have to identify the lawyers' licensing if individual lawyers are named?

A: Yes. The opinion notes that if individual lawyers are listed as "associated," the jurisdiction each is licensed in must be shown so the letterhead is not misleading.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications) and 7.5(a) and (b) (firm names, professional designations, and multi-jurisdiction firms), corresponding to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5, with reference to Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3) (dishonesty or misrepresentation), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4. It relies on ABA Formal Ethics Opinion No. 84-351 for the meaning of "affiliated" and "associated."

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Oregon RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
  • Oregon RPC 7.5(a), (b) / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names, designations, multi-jurisdiction firms)
  • Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3) / Model Rule 8.4 (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation)

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Formal Ethics Op. No. 84-351 (designating another firm as "affiliated" or "associated")
  • Washington Advisory Op. No. 1015 (1986)

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2005. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace