WSBA 1986

Can a law firm include an associate who is not a partner in the firm name?

Short answer: No. The committee concluded that a firm name listing an associate alongside the partners (A, B, P.S., & C) would violate RPC 7.5(d) because it would imply a partnership that did not exist and that the associate was jointly liable for the firm's obligations.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, 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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Two partners, A and B, wanted to add the name of C, an associate of the firm, to the firm name, so that the letterhead would read "A, B, P.S., & C." The question was whether RPC 7.5(d) permitted listing a non-partner associate in the firm name.

The committee concluded that the proposed letterhead would be prohibited by RPC 7.5(d). Listing C in the firm name would imply that a partnership existed where none did, and would further imply that C, as a partner, would be jointly liable with the other putative partners for any liability of the firm.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a firm add an associate's name to the firm name?

A: Not in the manner asked. Under this 1986 opinion, listing an associate alongside the partners in the firm name violated RPC 7.5(d) because it implied a partnership that did not exist.

Q: Why was implying a partnership a problem?

A: The committee said it would falsely imply both that a partnership existed and that the named associate was jointly liable, as a partner, for the firm's liabilities.

Q: What rule applied?

A: RPC 7.5(d), which addresses stating or implying that lawyers practice in a partnership or other organization when that is not the fact.

Background and rules framework

RPC 7.5 (Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 7.5) governs firm names and letterheads, and subsection (d) addresses stating or implying that lawyers practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact. The committee applied RPC 7.5(d) to a proposed firm name that would have listed a non-partner associate among the partners.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
Washington RPC 7.5(d)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=116

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

[A & B were partners in a law firm and wished to include the name of C., an associate, in the name of their firm.] The Committee was of the opinion that your proposed letterhead showing the name of the firm as A, B, P.S., & C would be prohibited by RPC 7.5(d) because it would imply that a partnership existed where none does, and further would imply that C, as a partner, would be jointly liable with the other putative partners for any liability of the law firm.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1986 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.