WSBA 1987

Can a sole practitioner put 'associates' on the letterhead because he regularly works with other independent lawyers?

Short answer: The committee unanimously concluded that a sole practitioner's use of 'associates' on the letterhead would be misleading, because the public would be led to believe the lawyer employs other lawyers in the office assisting in representation, which is not the case where those lawyers are neither partners nor employees.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1987
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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

The inquiry concerned a sole practitioner who used letterhead showing his name and the word "associates," on the theory that it was proper because he regularly associated on certain cases with various lawyers who were neither partners nor employees.

The committee was of the unanimous opinion that such letterhead would be misleading to the public, because the public would be led to believe that the lawyer had other lawyers employed in his office, assisting him in the representation of clients, when that was not the fact.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 solo lawyer use "associates" because he works with other independent lawyers?

A: The committee concluded that doing so is misleading, because "associates" implies the lawyer employs other lawyers in the office, which is not the fact when those lawyers are neither partners nor employees.

Q: Why did the committee treat the term as misleading?

A: Because the public would understand "associates" to mean lawyers employed by and working in the lawyer's office assisting in representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 7.1(a) (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, ABA Model Rule 7.1) and RPC 7.5(d) (firm names and letterheads, ABA Model Rule 7.5), treating "associates" on a sole practitioner's letterhead as implying employed lawyers the firm did not have.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Washington RPC 7.1(a)
  • ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads); Washington RPC 7.5(d)

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1086
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 7.1(a); 7.5(d)
Subject: Letterhead; firm name; use of term "associates" by sole practitioner

The Committee considered your inquiry concerning the use of letterhead showing the name of a lawyer and the word "associates" by a sole practitioner who states that he believes that the use of such letterhead is proper because he associates regularly on certain cases with various lawyers who are not partners nor employees of him. The Committee was of the unanimous opinion that the use of such letterhead would be misleading to the public because they would be led to believe that the lawyer was a lawyer who had other lawyers employed by him working in his office, assisting him in the representation of clients when that is not the fact.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1987 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.