Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a Vermont firm list paralegals and law clerks on its letterhead?

Short answer Opinion 79-13 allowed names of nonlawyer staff on firm letterhead when the listing was not deceptive, made their nonlawyer status clear, and supplied information relevant to choosing counsel.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1979
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1979. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The committee considered whether a law firm could list paralegals and law clerks on its letterhead. It concluded that the listing was permitted when it would not deceive the public and could reasonably give a prospective client information relevant to choosing counsel. The letterhead had to identify the employees' nonlawyer status clearly.

The committee discussed Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and a New York State Bar Association opinion on nonlawyer names. It cautioned that the Vermont Supreme Court had not changed the quoted letterhead rule, which could be read more restrictively than the committee's opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history states that the Rules of Professional Conduct applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999. Later rule amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this opinion as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Could the firm list a paralegal by name?

A: Yes, under the committee's opinion, if the paralegal was clearly identified as a nonlawyer and the listing was useful to someone choosing counsel without being deceptive.

Q: What qualification did the committee add about the court's rule?

A: It cautioned that the Vermont Supreme Court had not changed the letterhead rule it quoted and that the rule could be read more restrictively than the committee's answer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion quoted Vermont's former letterhead rule, referred to DR 2-101 (D) and DR 2-105, and cited EC 1-1, EC 9-1, and EC 9-2 on professional integrity and public confidence.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101 (D), DR 2-105, EC 1-1, EC 9-1, EC 9-2

Cases:

  • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691 (1977), attorney advertising

Other opinions cited:

  • New York State Bar Association Opinion #500, nonlawyer employees on letterhead

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1979. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace