Can a law firm put its non-lawyer business administrator's name on the firm's outside sign?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a law firm could place on its outside sign, which already showed the firm name, the designation "law offices," and the names of attorneys, the name of the firm's full-time non-lawyer business administrator followed by the words "business administrator." The Committee relied on Opinion 426, which held that a firm's outdoor sign is publicity and advertising subject to DR 2-101, and that DR 2-101(A) bars a lawyer from making any false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services.

In Opinion 426 the Committee had found it impermissible to list a non-lawyer investigator who was an independent contractor, because doing so risked misleading people seeing the sign. The Committee distinguished the present facts: a business administrator is a full-time employee rather than an independent contractor and would in many circumstances be less likely than an investigator to perform services directly for clients. Even so, it found a risk that people seeing the sign might wrongly conclude the listed person was a licensed lawyer.

The Committee concluded that, although there may be less likelihood of confusion with a business administrator than with an investigator, listing the administrator without a notation that the person is not licensed to practice law creates a significant risk of violating DR 2-101(A). It held that the listing is permissible only if the sign both designates the person as a business administrator and indicates that the person is not licensed to practice law; with that notation, the sign is not false or misleading and involves no violation.

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 current Texas rule on misleading communications about a lawyer's services is Rule 7.02, with the closest 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 non-lawyer business administrator be named on a firm's outside sign?

A: Per the opinion, yes, but only if the sign designates the person as a business administrator and indicates the person is not licensed to practice law. Without that notation, the listing risks violating DR 2-101(A).

Q: How is this different from listing a non-lawyer investigator?

A: In Opinion 426 the Committee barred listing an investigator who was an independent contractor. It distinguished the business administrator as a full-time employee less likely to serve clients directly, but still required the not-licensed notation to avoid misleading the public.

Q: What makes the sign acceptable?

A: The Committee concluded that with both the "business administrator" designation and an indication that the person is not licensed to practice law, the sign is not false or misleading and involves no violation of the Code.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-101(A) of the former Texas Code of Professional Responsibility (no false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services), applied to a firm's outdoor sign as publicity and advertising per Opinion 426. The closest current concepts are Texas Rule 7.02 and Model Rule 7.1 on communications about a lawyer's services. The analysis turns on whether the public could be misled into thinking a listed non-lawyer is a lawyer, and how a clarifying notation removes that risk.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services must not be misleading)
• DR 2-101(A), Texas Code of Professional Responsibility

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 426 (firm's outdoor sign is advertising; listing a non-lawyer investigator impermissible)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 438: Unsupervised Non-Lawyer CPA Work for Firm Clients
• TX Ethics Op. 440: Specialization Claims on Firm Letterhead and Business Cards

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-437/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_437.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it permissible under the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility for a law firm to place on its outside sign (which includes the firm name, the designation "law offices" and the names of attorneys) the name of the law firm's business administrator, who is a full-time employee of the law firm but who is not an attorney, followed by the words "business administrator?"

DISCUSSION

This Committee held in Opinion 426 that a law firm's outdoor sign constitutes publicity and advertising subject to the requirements of Disciplinary Rule ("DR") 2-101. DR 2-101(A) provides in pertinent part that a lawyer shall not make on behalf of himself or any other lawyer "any false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services."

In Opinion 426, this Committee held that it was not permissible under the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility for a law firm to include on an outdoor sign the name of an investigator who was an independent contractor and not a lawyer. The reason given for this conclusion was that the inclusion of the investigator's name in the circumstances presented would have involved a substantial risk of misleading persons seeing the law firm's sign.

The circumstances presented in the present case differ from the circumstances involved in Opinion 426 in that the business administrator is a full-time employee rather than an independent contractor with respect to the law firm and a business administrator would in many circumstances be less likely than an investigator to perform services directly for clients of the law firm. However, in these circumstances as in the situation presented in Opinion 426, there is a risk that people seeing the sign might erroneously conclude that the person listed as performing a specialized function is a licensed lawyer.

Although there may be less likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the case of a business administrator than is the case of an investigator, listing a business administrator on the firm sign without notation that the business administrator is not licensed to practice law creates a significant risk of violation of DR 2-101(A) by causing some members of the public to believe that the listed business administrator is a lawyer. Accordingly, listing of the business administrator's name and designation as business administrator on a law firm's outside sign would unquestionably be permissible under the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility only if a further notation were added that the listed person was not licensed to practice law. Listing the business administrator with such notation on the sign would involve no violation of the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility since the sign would not in any sense be false or misleading to persons reading the sign.

CONCLUSION

It is permissible under the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility for a law firm to include on an outside sign for the law firm the name of a business administrator who is a full-time employee of the law firm and who is not an attorney provided the person is designated as a business administrator and it is indicated on the sign that the person is not licensed to practice law.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 437 (1986)