Can a lawyer who is well known by a radio or TV stage name practice law under that assumed name, or legally change his name to it?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry came from attorney John Doe, who had been in the radio and television business for many years under an assumed name and had become widely known by it. He asked whether he could ethically conduct his law practice under the assumed name and, if not, whether he could legally change his name to the popularized assumed name and then practice under it.

On the first question, the Committee said the answer is clearly "no": Canon 30 expressly prohibits the use of any assumed name for the practice of law. That ruling was 8-0.

On the second question, one member thought an attorney, like anyone else, may legally change his name to whatever he wishes and practice in that name without violating the Canons. The majority disagreed, holding that a legal change of name for the purpose of capitalizing on the popularity of an assumed name would constitute solicitation in violation of Canon 24. The Committee so ruled, 6-2.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1966, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. It also predates Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which loosened categorical advertising restrictions, though prohibitions on misleading communications were not eliminated. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer practice under a stage name or other assumed name?

A: No. The Committee said Canon 30 expressly prohibits the use of any assumed name for the practice of law.

Q: Can the lawyer instead legally change his name to the assumed name and practice under it?

A: The majority said no, where the purpose is to capitalize on the popularity of the assumed name; it held that would constitute solicitation in violation of Canon 24.

Q: Was the second ruling unanimous?

A: No. The vote was 6-2; one member thought a lawyer may legally change his name like anyone else and practice under it without violating the Canons.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 30 (prohibiting an assumed name for the practice of law) and Canon 24 (solicitation). The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and professional designations) and Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterhead), as the modern analog
• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 30 and 24 (former canons)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 331: "Tax Attorney" Specialty Designation on a Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 333: Lawyer-Legislator Listing "State Senator" on a Shingle
• TX Ethics Op. 350: Displaying Both an LLB and a JD When Only One Law Degree Was Earned

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-324/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_324.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Attorney John Doe has engaged in the radio and television business for many years under an assumed name and has become widely known by his assumed name. He inquires (1) whether he can ethically conduct his law practice under the assumed name, and if not (2) whether he can legally change his name to the popularized assumed name and then ethically conduct his law practice in such name.

23 Baylor L. Rev. 853 (1972)

ASSUMED - SOLICITATION
An attorney may not use any assumed name in connection with his law practice and he may not capitalize upon an assumed name by legally changing his name.

Canons 30, 24.

The answer to the first inquiry is clearly "no." Canon 30 expressly prohibits the use of any assumed name for the practice of law. (8-0.)

As to the second inquiry, one member of the Committee feels that an attorney, like any other person, may legally change his name to any name he desires and practice law in that name without violating any of the Canons of Ethics. The majority of the Committee, however, is of the opinion that a legal change of name for the purpose of capitalizing upon the popularity of an assumed name would constitute solicitation in violation of Canon 24. The Committee so rules. (6- 2.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 324 (1966)