Can a Texas firm's letterhead list a lawyer licensed only in another state, or show a lawyer's CPA credential, or note that a lawyer is licensed in Texas and one other state?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry posed three letterhead and professional-card questions: whether a Texas firm with a Texas office may list a lawyer licensed in another state but not yet in Texas; whether a lawyer who is also a CPA may show the accounting qualification on the firm's letterhead and professional card; and whether the letterhead may state that a lawyer is licensed in Texas and one other state when the firm has only a Texas office. The Committee framed all three as questions of communication under DR 2-101(A), noting that letterhead or card information could raise advertising concerns under DR 2-101(B) in some circumstances but did not here, because these involve information placed on a card or letterhead rather than disseminated to the public through media.

The Committee explained that DR 2-101(A) prohibits any false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services and lists eight situations in which a communication may be considered false and misleading, such as material misrepresentations, unverifiable claims, predictions of success, and testimonials. It concluded that none of the three proposed uses runs afoul of those enumerations and that, as a general matter, they are not false or misleading, so the answer to all three questions is yes. The Committee added that listing lawyers licensed in another state should make clear the jurisdictional limitations of those lawyers, citing DR 2-102(C) and Opinion 400, and pointed to Ethical Consideration 2-10 for an advisory list of includable matters.

As a result, the Committee overruled Opinion 50 (1952), which had held that a lawyer not licensed in Texas could not be listed on the letterhead of a firm with only one Texas office, and Opinion 291 (1964), which had held that a lawyer who was also a CPA could not show the accounting qualification on his letterhead.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983, under the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The Disciplinary Rules have since been amended, and Texas never adopted the ABA's Ethics 2000 framework; Texas substantially revised its lawyer-advertising rules in 2021. The closest current provisions are Texas Rule 7.01 (firm names and letterhead) and Rule 7.02 (communications about a lawyer's services), with ABA analog Model Rule 7.1. Subsequent rule changes 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 firm list a lawyer licensed only in another state on its letterhead?

A: Per the opinion, yes. The Committee concluded the listing is not false or misleading under DR 2-101(A), and said the firm should make clear the jurisdictional limitations of such lawyers under DR 2-102(C).

Q: Can a lawyer who is also a CPA show the accounting credential on letterhead and cards?

A: Yes. The Committee concluded the CPA qualification is not a false or misleading communication under DR 2-101(A) and, in so holding, overruled Opinion 291 (1964).

Q: Did this opinion change earlier Texas guidance?

A: Yes. The Committee overruled Opinion 50 (1952) on listing out-of-state lawyers and Opinion 291 (1964) on showing a CPA credential, both of which had barred those letterhead uses.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-101(A) (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, with its eight enumerated categories), references DR 2-101(B) (advertising), and applies DR 2-102(C) (identifying the jurisdictional limitations of listed lawyers) of the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility, along with EC 2-10. The Committee situates the analysis after the U.S. Supreme Court's lawyer-advertising decisions in Bates and R.M.J. The closest current provisions are Texas Rules 7.01 and 7.02, with ABA analog Model Rule 7.1.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• DR 2-101(A), DR 2-101(B), DR 2-102(C), EC 2-10 (former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), constitutional protection for truthful lawyer advertising
• Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), limits on restricting non-misleading lawyer communications

Other opinions cited:

• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 400, 44 Tex. B.J. 801 (1981): letterheads of multistate law firms
• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 50 (1952): overruled
• Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 291 (1964): overruled

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 451: Municipal Judge Using Law Firm Letterhead With Litigants
• TX Ethics Op. 426: Listing a Non-Lawyer Investigator on a Firm's Outdoor Sign
• TX Ethics Op. 407: Foreign Law Firm's Texas Office Advising Only on Foreign Law

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-406/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_406.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Can a lawyer's name be shown on a Texas law firm's letterhead if the firm maintains an office in Texas and if the lawyer is licensed to practice in another state but not yet licensed to practice in Texas?
Can a lawyer who is also a CPA show the accounting qualification on his law firm's letterhead and on his professional card?
Can a lawyer show a Texas law firm's letterhead that he is licensed to practice in Texas and one other state if his firm maintains an office in only Texas?

DISCUSSION

These issues address questions of communication under Disciplinary Rule 2- 101(A) of the State Bar's Code of Professional Responsibility, effective September 1, 1982. Although the use of a lawyer's letterhead or professional card could raise advertising issues under DR 2-101(B) in some circumstances, such is not the case in these instances. Rather, the issues at hand relate only to information which may be placed on a lawyer's letterhead or professional card, not to information which, being placed on letterhead or card, is then disseminated in some way on the letterhead or card to the general public through the printed or electronic media. For two important advertising cases, see Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) and Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982).

DR 2-101(A) prohibits a lawyer from making "any false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services." It then enumerates eight instances when a communication might be considered false and misleading. Briefly, those instances are if the communication (1) contains a material misrepresentation or omission, (2) contains a statement of opinion as to the quality of legal services, (3) contains a representation or implication regarding services which cannot be reasonably verified by the public, (4) contains predictions of future success, (5) contains statistical data which cannot be reasonably verified by the public, (6) contains information on past performance which cannot be reasonably verified by the public, (7) contains a testimonial about or endorsement of a lawyer, or (8) can or is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results a lawyer can achieve. The communications presented in the above three issues do not run afoul of any of the enumerations in DR 2-101(A). As a general matter as well, they are not false or misleading. Therefore, a letterhead or professional card may be used in the ways suggested by the three issues. The answer to all issues is thus yes. See also Ethical Consideration 2-10 for an advisory list of matters includable in advertising.

In connection with letterhead enumerations by law firms regarding lawyers licensed to practice in a state other than Texas, it is well to observe that those law firms should "make clear the jurisdictional limitations" of such lawyers. See, e.g., DR 2-102(C) of the State Bar of Texas Code of Professional Responsibility (as to interstate law firms): cf. Tex. Professional Ethics Comm., Op. 400, 44 Tex.B.J. 801 (1981) (letterheads of multistate law firms). Moreover, the dictates of DR 2-101 of the State Bar of Texas Code of Professional Responsibility should also be closely observed.

As a result of the conclusions in this opinion, it is necessary to overrule Opinion 50 of the Professional Ethics Committee (1952), which held that a lawyer not licensed in Texas could not be listed on the letterhead of a law firm maintaining only one office in one Texas city, and Opinion 291 of the Professional Ethics Committee (1964), which held that a lawyer who was also a CPA could not show the accounting qualification on his letterhead.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 406 (1983)