How can two solo practitioners who share an office answer a shared phone line without implying they are a partnership?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned how to answer a shared phone line for two solo practitioners who share office space. The committee was of the opinion that answering the phone "Law offices of A and B" would violate RPC 7.1, because it would be misleading in implying that a law partnership or other such association existed between them.

The committee was of the opinion that other methods of answering the phone, such as "Law Office of A and Law Office of B," "Law Offices of A and of B," or merely "Law Offices," would not be misleading.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 two solos sharing an office answer the phone "Law offices of A and B"?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, no. The committee found that form misleading under RPC 7.1 because it implies a partnership or association.

Q: What phrasing did the committee say was acceptable?

A: Forms that keep the practices separate, such as "Law Office of A and Law Office of B," "Law Offices of A and of B," or simply "Law Offices."

Background and rules framework

RPC 7.1, as Washington then numbered it, prohibited false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services and governed firm names and designations; the subject corresponds to ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.5. The committee applied it to the way a shared phone line was answered, treating a combined "A and B" designation as an implied partnership the two solos did not have.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1270: Associating With a Nonlawyer Consultant

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=351

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the answering of a shared phone line on behalf of two solo practitioners who share office space. The Committee was of the opinion that answering the phone "Law offices of A and B" would violate RPC 7.1 as it would be misleading in that it implies a law partnership or other such association existed between you. However, the Committee was of the opinion that other methods of answering the phone such as "Law office of A and Law Office of B," "Law Offices of A and of B" or merely "Law Offices" would not be misleading.