May a Vermont lawyer form a firm with a Massachusetts partnership whose lawyers are not admitted in Vermont?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A Massachusetts partnership proposed a Vermont general partnership with a Vermont lawyer. The Massachusetts lawyers were not admitted in Vermont, and the Vermont lawyer was not admitted in Massachusetts. The proposed letterhead and cards would identify where each lawyer could practice.
The committee concluded that this arrangement presented no ethical barrier if the firm clearly disclosed all lawyers' practice limits. It relied on former DR 2-102(D), which permitted lawyers admitted in different jurisdictions to use the same firm name when their listings made jurisdictional limitations clear. The opinion also cited ABA Formal Opinions 316 and 318 and ABA Informal Opinion 1355; it treated the ability of a partnership itself to be a partner as no obstacle.
The conclusion concerned the described disclosure arrangement. It did not authorize an unadmitted lawyer to perform legal acts reserved to lawyers licensed in a particular state.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999. Check current admission, firm-name, and professional-conduct rules before relying on this historical opinion.
Common questions
Q: Could a Vermont lawyer join a Massachusetts partnership under one firm name?
A: The committee found no ethical barrier on the stated facts, provided the firm clearly disclosed each lawyer's jurisdictional practice limits.
Q: Could a partnership itself be one of the partners?
A: The committee cited ABA guidance saying that this did not change the ethics analysis.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Vermont Code DR 2-102(D) to the proposed interstate firm and its letterhead and professional cards.
Citations and references
- Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-102(D)
- ABA Formal Opinions 316 and 318; ABA Informal Opinion 1355
See also
Source
- Vermont Bar Association partnership opinions
- Official Advisory Ethics Opinion 83-03 PDF
- Vermont Supreme Court rules history, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1983. 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