Can a Texas lawyer form a partnership with a District of Columbia lawyer under a joint firm name if the letterhead shows the out-of-state partner is in the Washington office?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer admitted in both Texas and the District of Columbia proposed to form a partnership with a lawyer admitted only in the District of Columbia, practicing under the firm name "Doe and Roe." The letterhead would show "Texas Office, John Doe, Austin, Texas" and "Washington, D. C. Office, Richard Roe," with each partner maintaining offices only within the jurisdiction where he was licensed. The inquiry asked whether this violated the Canons.

The Committee held it did not. It noted that Canon 30 is the only Texas Canon relating to partnerships, and that nothing in it condemned the arrangement: no false or misleading firm name was used, and the letterhead clearly showed the lawyer admitted only in the District of Columbia as being at the Washington office and not in Texas.

The Committee cited ABA Canon 33, which cautions that partnerships among lawyers not all admitted in the state should avoid any misleading name or representation about the professional position of a member not locally admitted, and ABA Opinion 256, which approved a comparable arrangement so long as letterheads and other representations make clear which members are licensed only in the branch-office jurisdiction. It distinguished Texas Opinion 50, which barred carrying an out-of-jurisdiction associate on a letterhead, because there the letterhead gave no indication the associate was in the Washington office rather than the Texas office. The vote was 5-2.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1959, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a Texas lawyer partner with a lawyer admitted only in another jurisdiction?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The Committee held that a Texas lawyer may form a partnership with a District of Columbia lawyer under a joint firm name, finding nothing in Canon 30 to condemn it.

Q: What made the letterhead acceptable?

A: The letterhead clearly showed the District of Columbia lawyer at the Washington office and not in Texas, so it created no false impression that he was admitted to practice in Texas.

Q: How did this differ from the earlier Opinion 50?

A: The Committee distinguished Opinion 50 because there the letterhead gave no indication that the out-of-jurisdiction associate was in the Washington office rather than the Texas office, leaving a misleading impression.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 30, the only Texas Canon then addressing partnerships, and looks to ABA Canon 33 on partnerships among lawyers not all locally admitted. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on communications about a lawyer's services, Model Rule 7.5, on firm names and letterheads, and Model Rule 5.5, on multijurisdictional practice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), as the modern analog
• MR 5.5 (multijurisdictional practice), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 30 (former canon)
• ABA Canon 33 (partnerships among lawyers not all locally admitted)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Opinion 256: approving a comparable multi-office firm letterhead
• Texas Opinion 50: distinguished; an out-of-jurisdiction associate on a letterhead without office indication

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 250: Two-State Office Announcement Card
• TX Ethics Op. 319: Multi-State Firm Name in Texas
• TX Ethics Op. 263: Firm Name Without a Partnership
• TX Ethics Op. 276: Out-of-State Lawyer as Law Clerk

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-227/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_227.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics of the State Bar for a lawyer admitted to practice both in Texas and in the District of Columbia to form a partnership with a lawyer admitted to practice in the District of Columbia only, the partnership to practice under the firm name of "Doe and Roe" and to have representation on its letterhead to the effect "Texas Office, John Doe, Austin, Texas" and "Washington, D. C. Office, Richard Roe," each partner to maintain offices within the jurisdiction wherein he is licensed?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 308 (1966)

PARTNERSHIPS - PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF LICENSED MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR AND AN OUT-OF-STATE LAWYER
A member of the Texas State Bar who is also admitted to practice in the District of Columbia may properly form a partnership with a lawyer admitted to practice in the District of Columbia only, the partnership to practice under a firm name which includes each partner's name, provided the letterheads of the firm indicate the out-of-state lawyer practices only in the District of Columbia office of the firm, and provided there is no other misleading or deceptive circumstance which would lead anyone to believe the out-of-state partner is admitted to practice law in Texas.

Canon 30.

The only Canon of the State Bar of Texas that relates to partnerships is Canon 30, and there is nothing in that Canon to condemn the situation inquired about. There is no false or misleading name being used. Also, the letterhead clearly shows the lawyer who is admitted to practice only in the District of Columbia as being at the Washington, D. C. office and not in Texas.

Canon 33 of the American Bar Association provides in part, ". . . where partnerships are formed between lawyers who are not all admitted to practice in the courts of the state, care should be taken to avoid any misleading name or representation which would create a false impression as to the professional position or privileges of the member not locally admitted." ABA Opinion 256, interpreting ABA Canon 33, clearly approved a situation such as herein inquired about, provided the "letterheads, listings, and all other representations of the firm name to the public make it clear which members of the firm are licensed to practice only in Washington, or wherever the branch office may be located." In the situation in question there is no deceptive or misleading circumstance which would lead anyone to believe that "Roe" is admitted to practice law in Texas.

Texas Opinion 50 holds that it is a violation for a firm to carry on its letterhead as an associate a person who is a licensed attorney of another jurisdiction and before the U. S. Patent Office, but who has no license to practice in Texas. Opinion 50 may be distinguished from the present situation since there was there no indication on the letterhead that such associate would be in the Washington office rather than in the Texas office. (5-2.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 227 (1959)