Can a lawyer who was famous in TV and radio under a stage name practice law under that stage name, or add it as an 'also known as' to his legal name?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether an attorney who had been a well-known television and radio personality under an assumed name could practice law under that assumed name, and, alternatively, whether he could practice under his legal name while stating that he is "also known as" the assumed name. The Committee noted that Opinion 324, written under the former canons, had answered both questions in the negative, and reviewed the inquiry under the current disciplinary rules, ethical considerations, and advertising rules.

The Committee observed that the attorney is licensed under his real name with an assigned state bar number and must sign his pleadings accordingly. It saw no reason to overrule Opinion 324. It relied on DR 2-102(A), which provides that a lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name or a name misleading as to the identity of the lawyers practicing under it, and on EC 2-11, which says a lawyer shall practice only under a designation containing his own name, the name of an employing lawyer, the names of partners, or the name of a professional legal corporation. The opinion read these provisions to prohibit practice under a trade name and noted Opinion 398's prohibition on practicing under a trade name not containing the members' names.

The Committee concluded that an assumed name should not be permitted, and that such practice is not protected as commercial free speech. To the extent Opinion 398's language allowing practice under any name not misleading as to identity, responsibility, or status conflicted with this conclusion and DR 2-102(A), it overruled that language. The Committee held the conduct is prohibited and the attorney should practice under his legal name rather than a pseudonym, by an 8-1 vote.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, 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. The treatment of firm and trade names has changed significantly in the modern rules; the current Texas provisions are in Rule 7.01, and the ABA's former Model Rule 7.5 was withdrawn in 2018 and folded into Model Rule 7.1, which permits trade names that are not misleading. 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 lawyer practice under a former stage name?

A: Per the opinion, no. The Committee concluded DR 2-102(A) bars practicing under a trade name or a name misleading as to identity, so the attorney must use his legal name.

Q: Can he at least add the stage name as an "also known as"?

A: The Committee answered this in the negative as well, declining to overrule Opinion 324 and concluding the attorney should practice under his legal name and not a pseudonym.

Q: Did the Committee change any prior opinion?

A: Yes. It overruled the language of Opinion 398 (allowing any name not misleading as to identity, responsibility, or status) to the extent it conflicted with this opinion and DR 2-102(A).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-102(A) of the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility (no practicing under a trade name or a name misleading as to the lawyer's identity) and EC 2-11 (permissible practice designations). The closest current concepts are Texas Rule 7.01 and Model Rule 7.1 on firm names and trade names; the modern rules treat non-misleading trade names more permissively than this opinion did. The analysis turns on the Committee's view that an assumed name is a prohibited trade name.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services, including firm and trade names; the former MR 7.5 was folded into 7.1)
• DR 2-102(A), Texas Code of Professional Responsibility

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 324 (assumed name impermissible under the former canons; not overruled)
• Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 398 (overruled in part to the extent inconsistent)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 478: Office Sharing Under a Common Name
• TX Ethics Op. 491: Deceased Partner's Name in a New Firm

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-434/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_434.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it proper for an attorney who was once a well-known T.V. and radio personality, known in such business under an assumed name, to use the assumed name in the practice of law? Secondly, is it permissible for the attorney to practice law under his legal name and also state that he is also known as, thereafter stating his assumed name?

DISCUSSION

Opinion 324, written under the former canons, answers these two questions in the negative. Therefore, we must review this inquiry in light of the disciplinary rules and ethical considerations now governing the conduct of attorneys, and further in light of the rules concerning advertising. First, the committee is aware that the attorney is licensed under his real name with an assigned state bar number. He must sign his pleadings accordingly. Secondly, we see no reason to overrule Opinion 324. DR 2-102(A) provides: "A lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name." EC 2-11 provides that "a lawyer shall practice only under a designation containing only his own name, the name of a lawyer employing him, the name of one or more of the lawyers practicing in a partnership, or the name of a professional legal corporation." Thus, the applicable disciplinary rules and ethical considerations prohibit practice under a trade name. Further, Opinion 398 prohibits practice under a trade name which does not contain the name or names of the members of the firm. The rule, DR 2-102, provides "a lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name." Thus, such a practice is not protected as commercial free speech. Although it is true that Opinion 398 appeared to concentrate mainly on whether a trade name would be misleading to the public, this committee is of the opinion that a trade name or assumed name should not be permitted. To the extent that the language of 398, providing that a lawyer or professional corporation may practice under any name that is not misleading as to the identity, responsibility or status of those practicing thereunder, or otherwise false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive, is in conflict with this opinion and DR 2-102(A), the same is hereby overruled.

CONCLUSION

The conduct inquired about would not be to the interest of the public and is prohibited by the present disciplinary rules and ethical considerations. Accordingly, the attorney should practice law under his legal name and not a pseudonym. (8-1 vote)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 434 (1986)