Can a South Carolina law firm advertise the year it was 'established' based on when its founding partner began practicing law?

Plain-English summary

A law firm asked whether it could identify itself as having been "established" in the year the original founding partner first began practicing law with a predecessor firm. The committee answered yes, subject to conditions drawn from Rule 7.5.

The committee reasoned that the intent of Rule 7.5 is to let firms inform the public of the firm's lineage, so long as the communication contains no material misrepresentation or other misleading statement about the firm's origin. Where the founding partner's name is in the current firm name and that partner's practice with the firm and its predecessor firms has been continuous and uninterrupted, the firm may state it was established on the date the founder began practicing law with the first predecessor office.

If the founding partner's name is not in the current firm name, the committee concluded the firm must list the succession of firm names back to the founding partner in order to claim that establishment date.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: When can a firm claim it was "established" on the date its founder started practicing?

A: When the founding partner's name is in the current firm name and that partner's practice with the firm and any predecessor firms has been continuous and uninterrupted.

Q: What if the founder's name is no longer in the firm name?

A: The committee concluded the firm must then list the succession of firm names back to the founding partner to support the claimed establishment date.

Q: What rule governs this?

A: Rule 7.5, which bars firm names and designations that violate Rule 7.1's prohibition on false or misleading communications, and whose first Comment recognizes designations reflecting a "continuing succession" in a firm's identity.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 7.5(a), which provides that a lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead, or professional designation that violates Rule 7.1, the prohibition on false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services. The first Comment to Rule 7.5 recognizes that a firm may be designated by the names of present or deceased members where there has been a continuing succession in the firm's identity. Both correspond to the like-numbered Model Rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 7.5(a) / Model Rule 7.5: firm names and letterheads.
• South Carolina RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1: false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services.

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 96-03: Non-Law Credentials on Letterhead
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 95-30: Operating a Side Business Under the Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-96-01/

Original opinion text

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

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 96-01

May a law firm identify itself as having been "established" in the year that the original founding partner began his legal practice with a firm?

Summary:
Yes, as long as the founding partner's name appears in the firm's name and as long as his or her practice with the law firm and/or predecessor firm(s) has been "continuous" according to Rule 7.5.

Opinion:
Rule 7.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCACR 407) states that: "A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1", which forbids the use of a false or misleading communication about the lawyer's services. In addition, the first Comment to Rule 7.5 states that a law firm may be designated by the names of all or some of its members or by the names of deceased members where there has been a "continuing succession" in the firm's identity.

It is the opinion of the Committee that the intent of Rule 7.5 is to allow law firms to inform the public of the law firm's lineage so long as such communication does not contain a material misrepresentation or other misleading statement regarding the law firm's origin. Therefore, where the founding partner's name is contained in the firm's name and where the founding partner's practice with that firm and/or its predecessor firm(s) has been continuous and uninterrupted, then it is proper to state that the firm was "established" on that date that the founding partner began practicing law with the first predecessor law office. If the founding partner's name is not contained in the law firm's current name, then the current firm must list the succession of law firm names back to the founding partner in order to claim that the current law firm was established when the founding partner began his or her practice.