Can a group of in-house lawyers use common pleading paper or letterhead listing all their names?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether lawyers employed by the inquirer's association to represent members of local affiliates may use pleading paper that includes the names of all the lawyers without any other identification. The committee noted it was continuing to consider the issue and might propose a formal opinion to the Board of Governors.

In the meantime, the committee was of the opinion that the use of common stationery or letterhead by lawyers who practice as a group of in-house counsel is not misleading and not in violation of the rule, provided the stationery or pleading paper identifies them as members of the legal department of the employer. The committee therefore was of the opinion that the pleading paper as presented would violate RPC 7.5(d), but if it identified the lawyers as employees of the legal department it would not.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule it discusses, RPC 7.5(d) (firm names and letterhead), corresponds to Model Rule 7.5 and has since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a group of in-house lawyers share common letterhead or pleading paper?

A: Per the opinion, yes, with a condition. The committee was of the opinion that common stationery is not misleading and not a violation, provided the stationery or pleading paper identifies the lawyers as members of the employer's legal department.

Q: Why would pleading paper listing the lawyers' names alone violate the rule?

A: The committee was of the opinion that the pleading paper as presented, listing the names without identifying the lawyers as the employer's legal department, would violate RPC 7.5(d); adding that identification would cure the problem.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Washington RPC 7.5(d) (firm names and letterhead), corresponding to Model Rule 7.5. The committee made the result turn on whether the paper would mislead the public: common stationery for a group of in-house counsel is permissible so long as it identifies them as the employer's legal department, and the same paper without that identification would violate the rule. The committee noted the issue was still under consideration for a possible formal opinion to the Board of Governors.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 7.5(d) (firm names and letterhead), corresponding to Model Rule 7.5.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1224: a sole practitioner's associate using the firm letterhead
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1005: including a non-partner associate in the firm name
• WSBA Ethics Op. 930: an in-house lawyer who represents the company also testifying as a witness

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=308

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1228
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 7.5(d)
Subject: Pleading paper; in-house counsel

The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding whether lawyers employed by your association to represent members of local affiliates may use pleading paper which includes the names of all of the lawyers without any other identification. Although the Committee is continuing to consider this issue and may propose a formal opinion to the Board of Governors, I have been instructed to advise you that in the Committee's opinion, the use of common stationery or letterhead by lawyers who practice as a group of in-house counsel is not misleading and not in violation of the rule, providing that that stationery or pleading paper identifies them as members of the legal department of the employer. Therefore, the Committee was of the opinion that your pleading paper as presented would be in violation of RPC 7.5(d), whereas if it identified them as employees of the legal department it would not be in violation of that rule.