My out-of-state firm is opening a Rhode Island office, and the partners aren't licensed here. Can we use symbols like a dot or asterisk after each lawyer's name on our letterhead to show who's licensed where?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked the panel about the propriety of his association with the firm "X and Y," a partnership organized by Mr. X and Mr. Y in Massachusetts, where both partners are admitted to practice in Massachusetts but neither is admitted in Rhode Island, and only Rhode Island-licensed attorneys practice in the firm's Rhode Island office. The firm's stationery placed a dot after the names of attorneys licensed in Rhode Island and an asterisk after the names of attorneys licensed in Massachusetts, with an attorney licensed in both jurisdictions carrying both symbols. The attorney also noted, though he stated it was not pertinent to his inquiry, that Mr. X and Mr. Y were the only shareholders of a separate Massachusetts professional service corporation, "X and Y, P.C.," which the attorney understood to practice only in Massachusetts and to be entirely separate from the "X and Y" partnership.

The panel quoted Rule 7.5(b), which allows a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction to use the same name in each jurisdiction. It held that the Massachusetts partnership "X and Y" may certainly open an office in Rhode Island. But Rule 7.5(b) also requires the firm to indicate the jurisdictional limitations on lawyers not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located, and the panel found the dot-and-asterisk system inadequate for this purpose: although a reader could deduce from the symbols that Messrs. X and Y were not licensed in Rhode Island, that fact was not expressed as a "limitation," which the panel found confusing. The panel added that a dot and an asterisk are more likely to be confused with each other on cursory examination than more easily distinguishable symbols such as a dot and a cross.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in June 1989, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 7.5(b) as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can an out-of-state firm open an office in Rhode Island using its existing firm name?

A: Yes. The panel held that the Massachusetts partnership "X and Y" may certainly open an office in Rhode Island under Rule 7.5(b), which permits a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction to use the same name in each.

Q: Is it enough to mark unlicensed partners with a symbol on the letterhead?

A: Not under this opinion's facts. The panel found the dot-and-asterisk system inadequate because the jurisdictional limitation had to be deduced from the symbols rather than being expressly indicated, and because a dot and asterisk are easily confused with each other.

Q: What would make a jurisdictional-limitation notation adequate under Rule 7.5(b)?

A: The opinion does not prescribe a specific format, but it suggests that more easily distinguishable symbols, such as a dot and a cross, would be less prone to confusion than a dot and an asterisk, and that the limitation should be expressed as such rather than merely implied.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 7.5(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, which permits a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction to use the same firm name in each and requires the firm to indicate jurisdictional limitations for lawyers not licensed where a given office is located, to a multistate partnership's letterhead symbol system.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• RI RPC 7.5(b) (same firm name across jurisdictions; jurisdictional limitations must be indicated, as adopted November 15, 1988)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 88-03: Stationery Identifying a Lawyer's Single-State Bar Membership
• RI EAP Opinion 88-20: Partnership With an Out-of-State Firm Including a Professional Corporation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2089-11.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION 89-11, REQUEST #56
Issued June 15, 1989

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to the propriety of his association with the firm of "X and Y" under the circumstances he describes. The attorney advises the Panel that the firm of "X and Y" was organized as a partnership in another state by Mr. X and Mr. Y. The attorney states that Mr. X and Mr. Y are the only partners in the partnership, that both are admitted to practice in Massachusetts but that neither is admitted to practice in Rhode Island. The attorney states that only attorneys licensed to practice in Rhode Island practice in the Rhode Island office of the partnership. The attorney calls the Panel's attention to the partnership's stationery, on which the names of attorneys licensed to practice in Rhode Island are followed by a dot, and the names of attorneys licensed to practice in Massachusetts are followed by an asterisk. The individual licensed in both jurisdictions has both a dot and an asterisk after his name. Although not pertinent to the attorney's specific inquiry, the attorney advises the Panel that the two partners, Messrs. X and Y, are also the only shareholders in the Massachusetts legal professional services corporation of "X and Y, P.C.," a firm duly organized pursuant to Massachusetts law. The attorney states that to the best of his knowledge "X and Y, P.C." practices only in Massachusetts. The attorney also states that "X and Y, P.C." is entirely separate from the "X and Y" partnership.

Rule 7.5(b) provides, in pertinent part:

A firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction . . .

The Panel takes the position that the Massachusetts partnership "X and Y" may certainly open an office in Rhode Island. Rule 7.5(b) also requires the partnership to "indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located." Although the fact that Messrs. X and Y are not licensed to practice in Rhode Island can certainly be deduced from the symbols used, this fact is not expressed as a "limitation" and is therefore confusing. The Panel also notes that a dot and an asterisk are far more likely to be confused upon cursory examination than more easily distinguishable symbols such as a dot and a cross.

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.