Can lawyers who only share office space list their names together on the suite door, like a firm, if they add a line saying they are independent practitioners?
Texas Ethics Opinion 509: Office-Sharing Lawyers' Names on Suite Signage
Short answer: The Committee concluded that listing three office-sharing lawyers' names together on suite signage suggests a professional relationship that does not exist and misleads the public, violating Rule 7.04(a) and (d), and the line "Law Offices of Independent Practitioners" was not a sufficient disclaimer.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Plain-English summary
Three lawyers shared office space and proposed to put on their suite door the graphic "SMITH, JONES AND WASHINGTON / Law Offices of Independent Practitioners," with no other materials (letterhead, cards, brochures) carrying that statement, and with contracts of representation that expressly disclaimed any association among them beyond office sharing. The question was whether this violated Rule 7.04(a) and (d).
The Committee pointed to Comment 3 to Rule 7.04, under which lawyers who share office facilities but are not in fact partners or employees of a single firm may not denominate themselves in any manner suggesting an ongoing professional relationship. It concluded that using the lawyers' names separated only by commas suggests a professional relationship to the general public, and that suggesting a relationship where none exists is misleading and violates Rule 7.04(a) and (d).
The Committee acknowledged Opinion 487 (June 1991), which recognized that "appropriate language of disclaimer" may prevent a violation. It concluded that the words proposed here did not sufficiently disclaim to the public at large that no professional relationship of any kind existed. The Committee added that it does not view its duties as including a decision on each proposed disclaimer.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994, under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that took effect January 1, 1990. Texas did not adopt the ABA's Ethics 2000 revisions; its rules have been amended only piecemeal since, including the comprehensive 2021 revisions adopted by Texas Supreme Court order, which reorganized the lawyer-advertising rules in Part VII. 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 office-sharing lawyers put their names together on the door like a firm?
A: The Committee concluded they cannot list their names separated only by commas, because that suggests a professional relationship to the public that does not exist, which is misleading under Rule 7.04(a) and (d).
Q: Does a line like "Independent Practitioners" cure the problem?
A: The Committee concluded the proposed line "Law Offices of Independent Practitioners" did not sufficiently disclaim, to the public at large, that no professional relationship of any kind existed among the lawyers.
Q: Did it matter that only the door, not the letterhead or cards, carried the names?
A: The Committee's conclusion rested on Comment 3 to Rule 7.04 and the misleading suggestion of a professional relationship; it found the signage itself violated Rule 7.04(a) and (d) despite the absence of other materials and the disclaimers in the representation contracts.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.04 (advertisements in the public media; corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1 on false or misleading communications and 7.5 on firm names and letterhead), applying subsections (a) and (d) and Comment 3, which bars office-sharing lawyers who are not partners or employees of a single firm from denominating themselves in any manner suggesting an ongoing professional relationship. It draws on Opinion 487 for the proposition that an appropriate disclaimer can avoid a violation.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
- MR 7.5 (firm names and letterhead)
- Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.04 (incl. 7.04(a), (d); Comment 3)
Other opinions cited:
- Tex. Ethics Op. 487 (June 1991): an advertisement of this kind may avoid violating the Disciplinary Rules if appropriate language of disclaimer is included
See also
- TX Ethics Op. 529: Trade Names and Firm Names Implying Quality
- TX Ethics Op. 522: Firm Disclosure Duties After a Partner's False Credentials
- TX Ethics Op. 591: Cooperative Advertising Group Trade Name
Source
- Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-509/
- Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_509.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Three attorneys decide to share office space and decide to put on the door graphics of their suite:
SMITH, JONES AND WASHINGTON
Law Offices of Independent Practitioners
No other materials, such as letterhead, business cards, brochures or the like bear this statement or graphic. Contracts of Representation expressly denounce any association between the three attorneys, other than office sharing arrangements.
Is such a violation of State Bar Rule 7.04(a)?
Is such a violation of State Bar Rule 7.04(d)?
DISCUSSION
Comment 3 to Rule 7.04 states that "Lawyers who share office facilities but who are not in fact partners or employees of a single law firm may not denominate themselves in any manner suggesting such an ongoing professional relationship. (emphasis added)
This committee has studied and considered Ethics Opinion No. 487 (June 1991) which states that an advertisement such as this may not violate the Disciplinary Rules if "appropriate language of disclaimer" is included in such advertising.
The use of individuals' names separated only by commas suggests to the general public a professional relationship. The suggestion of a professional relationship when in fact there is no professional relationship is misleading to the public and is in violation of Rule 7.04(a) and (d).
According to Opinion 487 "appropriate language of disclaimer" may prevent a violation of these rules. These particular words described above do not sufficiently disclaim to the public at large that there exists no professional relationship of any kind between the attorneys. However, this committee does not feel that its duties include making a decision on each proposed disclaimer.
CONCLUSION
The use of individuals' names separated only by commas suggests to the general public a professional relationship. The suggestion of a professional relationship when in fact there is no professional relationship is misleading to the public and is in violation of Rule 7.04(a) and (d).
According to Opinion 487 "appropriate language of disclaimer" may prevent a violation of these rules. These particular words described above do not sufficiently disclaim to the public at large that there exists no professional relationship of any kind between the attorneys. However, this committee does not feel that its duties include making a decision on each proposed disclaimer.
Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 509 (1994)