TNBPR December 16, 1985

Can a law firm let a non-lawyer use the firm's mailing address and have firm staff answer a separate phone line listed in the non-lawyer's name?

Short answer: The opinion held there was no impropriety in the arrangement because the non-lawyer would not be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, so the firm's clerical accommodation (forwarding mail addressed to the non-lawyer and answering a separately listed phone line without revealing any firm affiliation) did not amount to assisting unauthorized practice.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A law firm partner who spent much of his time in a European city had a personal relationship with a non-lawyer there; the two shared an interest in corporate and computer fraud and were co-authoring a book on fraud in financial institutions. The non-lawyer wanted a presence in the United States, and the partner wanted working facilities while abroad. They proposed that the non-lawyer provide the partner office space overseas, while the law firm let the non-lawyer use the firm's U.S. street address for all incoming mail and installed a separate telephone line listed in the non-lawyer's name, with firm staff answering it and forwarding messages. The firm would not represent any affiliation with the non-lawyer, would not reveal the firm's name to the non-lawyer's correspondents or callers, and would not be associated with the non-lawyer in any business venture; the firm would merely provide a mail-receiving and message-taking service.

The opinion looked to Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law, and found no other provision of the Code bearing on the facts. Because the non-lawyer would not be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the opinion concluded the firm likewise would not be aiding unauthorized practice by providing the address and answering service, and found no impropriety in either the address-sharing or the separate telephone line as proposed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. 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: Does letting a non-lawyer use a law firm's mailing address amount to aiding unauthorized practice of law?

A: Not on these facts. The opinion found no impropriety because the non-lawyer was not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, so the firm's mail-forwarding accommodation did not assist unauthorized practice.

Q: Can law firm staff answer a phone line listed in a non-lawyer's name without revealing the firm's identity?

A: The opinion approved the arrangement as proposed: the firm's name would not be mentioned or revealed to callers, and staff would simply take messages and forward the information to the non-lawyer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law. The opinion found no other provision of the Code implicated. The modern correlate for the unauthorized-practice concern Canon 3 addressed is Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law; multijurisdictional practice of law), cited here as a navigational cross-reference rather than as a rule the opinion itself applied.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

Canon 3, Code of Professional Responsibility (duty to assist in preventing unauthorized practice of law)

Source

Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/85-f-103

Original opinion text

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

85-F-103 - Law Firm allowing non-lawyer to use address

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 85-F-103

Inquiry is made concerning the propriety of a law firm allowing a non-lawyer to use its mailing address; and, allowing an employee of the firm to answer a separate telephone installed in its office listed to a non-lawyer.

One of the partners of the law firm spends a large portion of his time in a metropolitan European city and has established a personal relationship with a non-lawyer. They share an interest in the areas of corporate and computer fraud, and are currently co-authoring a book on fraud in financial institutions.

The non-lawyer desires a presence in this country and the law firm partner desires working facilities while in the foreign city. They desire an agreement whereby the non-lawyer will

provide office space for the law firm partner and the law firm will provide the non-lawyer a presence in this country. The law firm address would be used by the non-lawyer for all mail originating in the United States. There will be no representation that the law firm is affiliated with the non-lawyer. The firm's name will not be revealed to individuals and/or organizations sending mail to the non-lawyer. The non-lawyer would be merely making use of the firm's street address and zip code.

A telephone line will be installed in the name of the non-lawyer. Incoming calls on the line will be answered in the name of the non-lawyer. The law firm's name would not be mentioned or revealed to the caller. The information received from the caller would then be forwarded to the non-lawyer.

The law firm would not be associated with the non-lawyer in any business ventures. The firm would merely be providing the service of answering the telephone and taking messages, and receiving mail.

Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer should assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law. There appears to be no other provisions of the Code even remotely impacting on the factual circumstances under consideration.

The non-lawyer will not be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Therefore, the law firm would not be engaged in aiding the unauthorized practice of law.

There is no impropriety, in this instance, in the law firm allowing the non-lawyer to use its mailing address; and, no impropriety in the use of a separate telephone line answered by an

employee of the firm as proposed herein.

This 16th day of December, 1985.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:

Henry H. Hancock

Edwin C. Townsend

W. J. Flippin

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1985 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.