Can three separate Texas law firms run joint ads under the name of one of them plus the word 'Group'?
Texas Ethics Opinion 591: Cooperative Advertising Under a 'Group' Trade Name
Short answer: Per the Committee, three separately named firms may not advertise cooperatively under the name of one firm followed by "Group," because that name is a prohibited trade name under Rule 7.01(a), so its use in advertising violates Rule 7.01(e) and Rule 7.04(o)(5).
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
The opinion addresses three separately named firms that share offices and expenses, cross-staff each other's cases under Rule 1.04(f) disclosure-and-consent agreements, and want to add joint advertising under a single banner: one firm's name followed by "Group" (the example used is "Jones Smith Group"). Each ad would say the Group is not a law firm or partnership, that it is composed of "Independent Law Firms Practicing Cooperatively," and would name the three firms.
The Committee starts from Rule 7.04(o), which permits cooperative advertising by lawyers not in the same firm only if the advertisement meets all the rule's requirements, including Rule 7.04(o)(5)'s requirement that the ad not otherwise violate the disciplinary rules. That sends the analysis to Rule 7.01(a), which bars practicing under a trade name, and Rule 7.01(e), which bars using a trade or fictitious name in advertising.
The Committee concludes "Jones Smith Group" is a trade name because the public would understand it as a name designating the business conducted by the advertising lawyers. Citing Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. C.R., 54 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App. 2001), it notes a trade name designates a good, service, or business. The disclaimers in the ad do not change that. The name is therefore a trade name prohibited by Rule 7.01(a), its use in advertising is prohibited by Rule 7.01(e), and its use in cooperative advertising is prohibited by Rule 7.04(o)(5).
In practice
Under this opinion, and under the Texas rules as they stood at the time, separately named firms cannot run joint advertising under an invented "Group" banner built from one firm's name. The Committee treats that banner as a trade name regardless of disclaimers stating the Group is not a firm and listing its members. It notes that whether the name is also "misleading" under Rule 7.01(a) is a fact question, but the trade-name bar alone is enough to prohibit it.
Common questions
Q: Can my firm and two others advertise together as "[Firm] Group"?
A: No. Per Opinion 591, that banner is a trade name prohibited by Rule 7.01(a), so using it in cooperative advertising violates Rule 7.04(o)(5).
Q: Does it help to state in the ad that the "Group" is not a law firm and to list each firm?
A: No. The Committee holds those statements do not change the fact that the name is a trade name; the prohibition still applies.
Q: Is cooperative advertising itself allowed?
A: Yes, in principle. The Committee notes Rule 7.04(o) permits cooperative advertising by lawyers not in the same firm, but only if every requirement is met, including that the ad not otherwise violate the rules.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.04(o) (cooperative or venture advertising), Rule 7.01(a) (no practicing under a trade name or a misleading or improper firm name), and Rule 7.01(e) (no trade or fictitious name in advertising), which correspond to ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterhead) and the advertising provisions now in Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 7.5 (firm names and letterhead, including trade names)
- MR 7.2 (advertising)
- MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
- Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.01(a), 7.01(e)
- Texas Disciplinary Rule 7.04(o), including 7.04(o)(5)
Cases:
- Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. C.R., 54 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App. 2001), defining a trade name
See also
- TX Ethics Op. 605: Use of a Departed Lawyer's Name in the Firm Name
- TX Ethics Op. 617: Out-of-State Trade Name and Conflict of Laws
Source
- Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-591/
- Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_591.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 Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for three law firms with different names to advertise cooperatively using the name of one of the law firms followed by the word “Group”?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Three law firms, the Jones Smith Law Firm, the Johnson Davis Law Firm, and the Morris Law Firm, wish to advertise cooperatively under the name “Jones Smith Group.” (All names used in this opinion are for illustrative purposes and do not relate to actual law firms.) The “Jones Smith Group” is not a law firm. None of the three law firms individually uses the name “Jones Smith Group.” The three law firms practice in adjoining offices, share expenses, and their practices are closely related. All three law firms participate in many of the cases originated by each of the firms individually. This participation is pursuant to a written disclosure and consent agreement that is entered into by the client and the originating law firm and that discloses the association of other lawyers or law firms as required by Rule 1.04(f) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Each of the three law firms advertises under its own name.
The proposed advertising arrangement using the name “Jones Smith Group” would be in addition to individual firm advertising. Each advertisement for the “Jones Smith Group” would state that “Jones Smith Group” is not a law firm or a partnership and that the “Jones Smith Group” is composed of “Independent Law Firms Practicing Cooperatively,” and each advertisement would specifically identify the three law firms included in the group.
DISCUSSION
Rule 7.04(o) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct permits lawyers to advertise as part of an advertising cooperative or venture of two or more lawyers not in the same firm so long as the requirements set out in the Rule are met. Under Rule 7.04(o), each such cooperative advertisement must meet specified requirements including the requirement of 7.04(o)(5) that the advertisement “does not otherwise violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Thus, application of Rule 7.04(o)(5) in the factual situation presented requires consideration of other Rules. Rule 7.01(a) in pertinent part provides:
“(a) 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, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm . . . .”
Exceptions stated in Rule 7.01(a) (relating to the use of abbreviations indicating the nature of the firm, the use of the names of deceased or retired lawyers of the firm or predecessors, and a married woman’s use of her maiden name) do not apply to the type of name here considered. Rule 7.01(e) prohibits a lawyer from using, in advertising in the public media or in seeking professional employment, any “trade or fictitious name” except for a firm name that is permitted under Rule 7.01(a) and that is used in the lawyer’s letterhead, business cards, office sign and other aspects of the lawyer’s practice.
It is the opinion of the Committee that the name “Jones Smith Group” is a trade name since the name would be understood by the public as a name adopted to designate the business conducted by the lawyers advertising their services under this name. In Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. C.R., 54 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied), the court recognized that “[a] trade name is a designation that is adopted and used by a person either to designate a good he markets, a service he renders, or a business he conducts.” 54 S.W.3d at 515. The fact that “Jones Smith Group” is a trade name would not be affected by statements in advertisements that the Jones Smith Group is not a law firm or partnership and that it is composed of multiple specifically identified law firms. Consequently, lawyers using the name “Jones Smith Group” in cooperative advertisements would be advertising under a trade name that is not a firm name permitted under Rule 7.01(a). Although it would be a factual question whether the use of “Jones Smith Group” is misleading in violation of Rule 7.01(a)’s prohibition on practicing under a misleading name, the name would unquestionably be a trade name prohibited by Rule 7.01(a). Consequently, use of this trade name in advertising would be prohibited by Rule 7.01(e) and its use in cooperative advertising would be prohibited by Rule 7.04(o)(5).
CONCLUSION
It is not permissible under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for three law firms with different names to advertise cooperatively using the name of one of the three law firms followed by the word “Group.”
Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 591 (2010)