Can a law firm keep using a former partner's name in the firm name after he leaves to start his own practice?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the continued use of a former partner's name after that partner intended to leave the firm and establish his own practice.

The committee was of the opinion that the firm could not continue to use the former partner's name. Use of the name of a lawyer who is no longer associated with the firm but is otherwise in the practice of law would be misleading or deceptive, in violation of RPC 7.1, and would not fall within the permissible exceptions allowed by RPC 7.5.

The committee added that nothing in the Professional Service Corporation Act would permit a different analysis.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.5 correspond to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5 and were rewritten in the current rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm keep a departing partner's name in the firm name?

A: Per the opinion, no, where the partner is leaving to practice elsewhere. The committee was of the opinion that continued use would be misleading or deceptive under RPC 7.1 and outside the exceptions of RPC 7.5.

Q: Why does it matter that the former partner is still practicing law?

A: The committee tied the problem to using the name of a lawyer no longer associated with the firm but otherwise in the practice of law; that, it said, makes the firm name misleading or deceptive.

Q: Did the Professional Service Corporation Act change the result?

A: No. The committee was of the opinion that nothing in the Professional Service Corporation Act would permit a different analysis.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rules then numbered Washington RPC 7.1 (a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services) and RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterhead), corresponding to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5. The committee held that keeping the name of a departed partner who continues to practice law elsewhere makes the firm name misleading or deceptive and does not qualify for RPC 7.5's exceptions, and that the Professional Service Corporation Act did not change that analysis.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services), corresponding to Model Rule 7.1.
• Washington RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterhead), corresponding to Model Rule 7.5.

Statutes:

• Professional Service Corporation Act (the committee found nothing in it that would permit a different analysis).

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 987: keeping a departed lawyer's name in the firm name
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1007: a firm name and letterhead after a lawyer withdraws from the partnership
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1146: listing lawyers inactive in other states on letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=224

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1144
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.5
Subject: Firm names; use of former partner's name

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the continued use of a former partner's name who intended to leave your law firm and establish his own practice. The Committee was of the opinion that your law firm could not continue to use the name of the former partner because use of a name of a lawyer no longer associated with your firm but otherwise in the practice of law would be misleading or deceptive and in violation of RPC 7.1 and would not fall within the permissible exceptions allowed by RPC 7.5. It was further the opinion of the Committee that nothing in the Professional Service Corporation Act would permit a different analysis.