Can my Rhode Island law firm, which is a professional corporation, form a partnership with an out-of-state law firm?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether it is permissible for a Rhode Island law firm organized as a professional corporation to form a partnership with an out-of-state law firm.

The panel concluded that it is permissible for a Rhode Island law firm organized as a professional corporation to form a partnership with an out-of-state law firm. The panel noted that while such an association is permitted, Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 applies.

The panel quoted Rule 7.5(b), which provides that a law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but that identification of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 7.5 as then in force. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which renumbered and amended several provisions. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a Rhode Island professional corporation partner with an out-of-state firm?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The panel concluded such a partnership is permissible.

Q: What does the firm have to do about its name and lawyer identifications?

A: Under Rule 7.5(b), the panel noted, a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each but must indicate the jurisdictional limitations of lawyers not licensed where the office is located.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 7.5 (Firm Names and Letterheads), corresponding to Model Rule 7.5. The panel permitted the interstate partnership while pointing to Rule 7.5(b)'s multi-jurisdiction firm-name provision, which allows the same firm name across jurisdictions but requires the firm to indicate which lawyers are not licensed in the jurisdiction where a given office is located.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• RI RPC 7.5(b)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-14: Trade Name in TV Advertising
• RI EAP Op. 95-33: Screening a Former Government Lawyer

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%2091-14.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 #91-14, Request #124
Issued July 18, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel opinion as to whether it is permissible for a Rhode Island law firm organized as a professional corporation to form a partnership with an out-of-state law firm.

It is permissible for a Rhode Island law firm which is organized as a professional corporation to form a partnership with an out-of-state law firm. The Panel notes that while such an association is permitted, Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 provides in relevant part:

(b) A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.

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.