Can lawyers who only share office expenses practice under a joint firm name like 'A, B and C, Attorneys at Law' if they are not actually partners?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1963. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Lawyers A, B, and C opened a suite and practiced under the name "A, B and C, Attorneys at Law," with that name on their stationery, calling cards, office door, and phone listing, and answered by the secretary as "A, B and C." Their arrangement was only a share-of-expense plan, each paying a third of rent, stationery, and library upkeep, with no profit sharing; they associated on numerous cases but set a separate fee-sharing arrangement for each. Every client was told the firm was not a true partnership and that retaining one lawyer did not mean retaining the others. The question was whether this violated the canons.
The Committee held that it did. Canon 30 prohibits a misleading firm name, and a firm name is misleading when it indicates a partnership that does not exist. A firm name on the office door, stationery, calling cards, and in the telephone directory unquestionably indicates a partnership, so if the named lawyers are not in fact partners, Canon 30 is violated. The Committee added that telling a client, after he is attracted to a non-existent firm, that there is no partnership and that only the lawyer he deals with will represent him does not cure the misleading appearance of the firm name as to the public generally. The opinion was rendered in amplification of Texas Opinion No. 67. The Committee ruled 9-0.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1963, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyers who only share expenses use a common firm name?
A: Under this opinion, no. The Committee held that a joint firm name indicates a partnership, so using it when no true partnership exists violates Canon 30.
Q: Does telling clients there is no partnership fix the problem?
A: No. The Committee said disclosing the lack of partnership after a client is attracted to the name does not eliminate the misleading appearance of the firm name to the public generally.
Q: Why is a firm name treated as indicating a partnership?
A: The Committee said a firm name on the door, stationery, calling cards, and in the telephone directory unquestionably indicates a partnership.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 30, which prohibited a misleading firm name. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.1, on false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, and Model Rule 7.5, on firm names and letterheads.
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
- Texas Canon 30 (former canon)
Other opinions cited:
- Texas Opinion No. 67: amplified by this opinion on misleading firm names
See also
- TX Ethics Op. 287: Continued Use of a Deceased Partner's Name in the Firm Name
- TX Ethics Op. 270: Renting Offices in a Building Sharing Facilities With Non-Lawyer Tenants
- TX Ethics Op. 285: "General Practice" on a Lawyer's Office Door Sign
Source
- Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-263/
- Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_263.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Lawyers A, B and C open up a suite of offices and practice under the firm name of "A, B and C, Attorneys at Law." Their stationery and calling cards, and their office door all have "A, B and C, Attorneys at Law" inscribed thereon. The phone is listed "A, B and C, Attorneys at Law" and is answered by the secretary "A, B and C."
Their partnership agreement consists of a share of expense plan, whereby each lawyer pays one-third of the total costs of rent, stationery, library upkeep, etc. There is no profit sharing plan, but the three lawyers do associate on numerous cases, with each case having a separate and different fee sharing arrangement.
Each client is told when consulting with any one of the three lawyers that the firm of A, B and C is not a true partnership and that retaining lawyer A does not mean that the client is retaining lawyers B and C; and that retaining lawyer B does not mean the client is retaining lawyers A and C; and that retaining lawyer C does not mean the client is retaining lawyers A and B.
Does this situation constitute a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the State Bar of Texas?
18 Baylor L. Rev. 339 (1966)
PARTNERSHIP
It is unethical for lawyers to practice together under a firm nameΧwhich name is used on their stationery calling cards and office door, in the telephone directory and in answering callsΧwhen the lawyers are not in actual fact operating as a true partnership.
Canon 30.
Canon 30 prohibits the use of a firm name which is misleading, and it must be concluded that a firm name is misleading when it indicates a partnership where, in fact, one does not exist. The committee believes that a firm name on the office door, stationery, calling cards and in the telephone directory unquestionably indicates a partnership and, if the lawyers whose names are so used are not in fact partners, there is a violation of Canon 30.
The fact that a client is told, after being attracted to a non-existent firm, that there is no partnership and that he will be represented only by the lawyer with whom he is dealing does not eliminate the misleading appearance of the firm name insofar as the public generally is concerned.
The present opinion is being rendered in amplification of Texas Opinion No. 67. (9-0.)
Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 263 (1963)
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1963 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.