Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

Could a North Dakota lawyer form a firm with a lawyer admitted in another state and North Dakota federal court, but not admitted to North Dakota state practice?

Short answer The committee said Rule 5.4(b) did not bar the partnership because both people were lawyers. Their public communications had to comply with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 and indicate the other lawyer's jurisdictional limits.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
February 26, 1993
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
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

A North Dakota lawyer proposed a partnership with a lawyer licensed in another state and admitted to the federal district court in North Dakota. The second lawyer had applied to take the North Dakota bar examination but was not yet licensed by the state.

The committee said Rule 5.4(b), which bars a law-practice partnership with a nonlawyer, did not prohibit two lawyers from forming a partnership merely because one was not licensed in North Dakota.

It warned that the proposed firm designation could mislead the public into believing both lawyers held North Dakota licenses. Applying Rules 7.1 and 7.2, it said their letterhead and other professional designations should identify the second lawyer's licensing limits, including admission in the other state and the North Dakota federal district court.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Did Rule 5.4(b) make the lawyer licensed elsewhere a nonlawyer for partnership purposes?

A: No. The committee said the rule did not bar a partnership between two lawyers, even though one lacked North Dakota admission.

Q: What did the committee require of the firm's public designation?

A: It said letterhead and other professional designations should indicate that the second lawyer was licensed only in the other state and in North Dakota federal district court.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies North Dakota Rule 5.4(b) to the proposed partnership and Rules 7.1 and 7.2 to the firm's public communications.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 5.4(b), partnerships with nonlawyers.
  • North Dakota Rules 7.1 and 7.2, firm communications and designations.

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1993. Ezel checks the current North Dakota 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