Can a law firm or legal-service corporation practice under a trade name like 'City Legal Clinic'?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1976. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion E-76-3 responded to a request about the ethical propriety of using the name "City Legal Clinic, S.C." The committee applied DR 2-102(B), which provided that a lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name misleading as to the identity of the lawyers practicing under it, or a firm name containing names other than those of the lawyers in the firm, except for symbols such as "P.C." or "P.A." indicating the nature of a professional corporation.
The committee pointed to EC 2-11, which warned that a trade name or assumed name could mislead laypersons about the identity, responsibility, and status of those practicing under it, and that a lawyer in private practice should practice only under his own name, an employing lawyer's name, a partnership name composed of the lawyers' names, or a clearly designated professional legal corporation name. It cited its own Informal Opinion A-1962, which held that a legal-service corporation's name must not be misleading or deceptive and that the words "legal service" or "law service" should not be used, along with Drinker on Legal Ethics and ABA informal opinions treating names such as "Northern Law Clinic" as improper, and a New York City Bar committee holding under Canon 33 that "____ Legal Clinic" was improper.
The committee concluded that using "City Legal Clinic," to designate either a law partnership or a legal-service corporation, would be conducting private law practice under a trade name, prohibited under DR 2-102(B) and its predecessor Canon 33.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1976, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Code's DR 2-102(B) and EC 2-11. The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and SCR 20:7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services). The treatment of law-firm trade names changed significantly after later constitutional decisions on lawyer advertising and the revised rules, which generally allow trade names that are not false or misleading. 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: Could a Wisconsin firm call itself 'City Legal Clinic' at the time of this opinion?
A: No. The committee concluded the name was an improper trade name under DR 2-102(B), whether used for a partnership or a legal-service corporation.
Q: Why was the trade name treated as misleading?
A: The committee relied on EC 2-11, reasoning that a trade or assumed name could mislead the public about the identity, responsibility, and status of the lawyers practicing under it.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the former Code's prohibition on trade names (DR 2-102(B), EC 2-11) and its predecessor Canon 33. The current counterparts are SCR 20:7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and SCR 20:7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (communications about services).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 7.5 / SCR 20:7.5 (firm names and letterheads); former Code DR 2-102(B), EC 2-11, predecessor Canon 33
- Model Rule 7.1 / SCR 20:7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services)
Other opinions cited:
- Wisconsin Informal Opinion A-1962: legal-service corporation names
- ABA informal opinions on trade names (per Drinker on Legal Ethics)
- New York City Bar opinion under Canon 33: "____ Legal Clinic"
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-80-16: Law Office Trade Name
- WI Ethics Op. E-79-3: Commerce Consultant Corporation and Letterhead
- WI Ethics Op. E-79-9: Interstate Association of Law Firms
Source
- Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-76-3.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1976 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.