Can a lawyer use a pseudonym (a fake name) while doing legal work?

Short answer The committee was of the opinion that, while it does not decide whether particular agency staff are practicing law, if an attorney is engaged in the practice of law then using a pseudonym would violate RPC 7.1(a) and 8.4(d).

Bar

WSBA

Issued

1996

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, 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 Not binding precedent.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

The committee reviewed whether an attorney's use of a pseudonym at work violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee did not express an opinion on whether DSHS claims officers or other staff are practicing law.

The committee was of the opinion that if an attorney is engaged in the practice of law, then the use of a pseudonym would violate RPC 7.1(a) and 8.4(d).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 7.1 and 8.4 correspond to ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and 8.4 (misconduct, including conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer use a fake name while practicing law?

A: The committee was of the opinion that if an attorney is engaged in the practice of law, using a pseudonym would violate RPC 7.1(a) and 8.4(d).

Q: Did the committee decide whether the agency staff in question were practicing law?

A: No. The committee did not express an opinion on whether DSHS claims officers or other staff are practicing law; its conclusion applies if the person is engaged in the practice of law.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 7.1(a) (communications about a lawyer's services, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 7.1) and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The committee made the violation contingent on the person being engaged in the practice of law, a question it left undecided for the agency staff at issue.

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 8.4 (misconduct); Washington RPC 8.4(d)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=742

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1660
Year Issued: 1996
RPC(s): RPC 7.1(a); 8.4(d)
Subject: Lawyer's use of a pseudonym at work

The Committee reviewed the question of whether an attorney's use of a pseudonym at work violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee does not express an opinion regarding whether DSHS claims officers or other staff, are practicing law. However, if an attorney is engaged in the practice of law, then the use of a pseudonym would violate RPC 7.1(a) and 8.4(d).

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1996. Ezel checks the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
Chat, drafting and research in one workspace