Can a lawyer or law office practice under a trade name rather than the lawyers' own names?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1980. 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-80-16 asked whether a lawyer or law office may operate under a trade name. The committee pointed to its earlier Formal Opinion E-76-3, which had reviewed DR 2-102(B) and its interpretations and concluded it would be improper to use the name "City Legal Clinic" to designate a law partnership or legal service corporation, because doing so would conduct private law practice under a trade name as prohibited under DR 2-102(B) and its predecessor, Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
The committee noted that DR 2-102(B) is substantially the same as SCR 20.08(2), adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court effective January 1, 1980. On that basis, it reaffirmed prior Opinion E-76-3 and treated trade-name practice as improper under the rule then in force.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1980, 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 provision (SCR 20.08(2), formerly DR 2-102(B)). The treatment of law-firm and trade names has changed substantially since 1980; firm names and communications are now governed by SCR 20:7.1 and the firm-name provisions of the current rules / Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5, which turn on whether a name is 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 law office use a trade name under this opinion?
A: No. The committee reaffirmed that operating a law practice under a trade name, such as "City Legal Clinic," was improper under the rule then in force.
Q: What rule did the committee rely on?
A: It relied on DR 2-102(B), which it found substantially the same as the newly adopted SCR 20.08(2), and on the earlier Formal Opinion E-76-3 interpreting that prohibition.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted the former Wisconsin rule on law-office and firm names (SCR 20.08(2), formerly DR 2-102(B), and its predecessor Canon 33). The current counterparts are the rules on truthful communications and firm names (SCR 20:7.1 / Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5), under which the test is whether the name is false or misleading.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Wis. SCR 20.08(2) (former DR 2-102(B); Canon 33) (law-office and trade names)
- Model Rules 7.1, 7.5 (truthful communications; firm names)
Other opinions cited:
- State Bar of Wisconsin Formal Opinion E-76-3: "City Legal Clinic" trade name improper
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-90-1: Law Firm Names for Independent Lawyers
- WI Ethics Op. E-85-6: Listing Legal Assistants on Firm Letterhead
- WI Ethics Op. E-93-1: Of Counsel Designation
Source
- Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-80-16.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1980 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.