Can a lawyer set up a nationwide internet law firm with members in every state under a trade name?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the opening of a National Internet Law Office, described as an Internet Legal Clinic. The committee reviewed the proposal and was of the opinion that specific portions of it are not in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, expressing concern over many aspects.

On the firm name, the committee said the name may currently conflict with RPC 7.5, although a proposal to change the rule regarding the use of a trade name was pending. Beyond the trade name, the committee said the implications of having a firm with active members in every jurisdiction would probably be contrary to the requirements of RPC 7.2 and 7.5(d), citing Formal Opinions 87 and 178. On conflicts, the committee said the mechanisms to detect and deal with conflicts of interest did not appear sufficient to comply with RPC 1.10, citing Formal Opinions 109 and 145.

On fees, the committee said the current structure would not constitute a regular law firm for the purpose of splitting fees under RPC 1.5(e), and that the proposed fee-splitting arrangement would not be in compliance with the rules, citing Formal Opinion 10. The committee also raised concerns about the ability to comply with RPC 1.14 (and equivalent requirements for each state) as the proposal was structured, as well as RPC 1.6 to the extent that alternative modes of communication were not readily encouraged, citing Informal Opinion 91-1. The committee added that making suggestions on how to rework the proposal to comply with the RPCs would constitute the provision of legal advice, which is specifically beyond the committee's authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.14 corresponded to ABA Model Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property). The other cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.5 (fees), 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.10 (imputation of conflicts), 7.2 (advertising), and 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). The opinion itself notes a then-pending proposal to change the trade-name rule; verify the current rules before relying on the citations here.

Common questions

Q: Could the proposed internet firm use its trade name?

A: The committee said the name may currently conflict with RPC 7.5, while noting a proposal to change the trade-name rule was pending.

Q: What about having active members in every state?

A: The committee said the implications of a firm with active members in every jurisdiction would probably be contrary to RPC 7.2 and 7.5(d).

Q: Did the committee find the conflict-checking adequate?

A: No. It said the mechanisms to detect and deal with conflicts of interest did not appear sufficient to comply with RPC 1.10.

Q: Was the proposed fee arrangement permissible?

A: The committee said the structure would not constitute a regular law firm for fee-splitting under RPC 1.5(e), and that the proposed fee-splitting arrangement would not comply with the rules.

Q: Did the committee identify trust-account or confidentiality concerns?

A: Yes. It raised concerns about compliance with RPC 1.14 (and equivalent each-state requirements) as structured, and RPC 1.6 to the extent alternative modes of communication were not readily encouraged.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 7.5 and 7.5(d) (firm names and letterheads), RPC 7.2 (advertising), RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts), RPC 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers not in the same firm), RPC 1.14 (safekeeping property, corresponding at the time to ABA Model Rule 1.15), and RPC 1.6 (confidentiality). The committee analyzed the proposed nationwide Internet firm against each of these rules, drawing on Formal Opinions 10, 87, 109, 145, and 178 and Informal Opinion 91-1, and declined to advise on how to restructure the proposal because that would be legal advice beyond its authority.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.5 (fees), subsection (e) (division of fees); Washington RPC 1.5(e)
• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.10
• ABA Model Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property); Washington RPC 1.14
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising); Washington RPC 7.2
• ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads); Washington RPC 7.5, 7.5(d)

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinions 87 and 178: firm with members in multiple jurisdictions.
• WSBA Formal Opinions 109 and 145: conflicts of interest and imputation.
• WSBA Formal Opinion 10: fee splitting and law-firm structure.
• WSBA Informal Opinion 91-1: communications and related compliance.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1076: Firm Names and Letterhead
• WA Ethics Op. 1776: Merged Firms Keeping Two Names
• WA Ethics Op. 1769: Trust Company Referring Clients

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=896

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1831
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.5(e); 1.6; 1.10; 1.14; 7.2; 7.5(d); Formal Opinions 10, 87, 109, 145, 178
Subject: Proposed nationwide internet law firm

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1831 concerning the opening of a National Internet Law Office. The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

The Committee expressed concern over many aspects of the proposed Internet Legal Clinic, and it is the opinion of the Committee that specific portions of your proposal are not in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The name of the firm may currently be in conflict with RPC 7.5, although a proposal to change the rule regarding the use of trade name is pending. Beyond the trade name aspect, however, the implications about having a firm with active members in every jurisdiction would probably be contrary to the requirements of RPC 7.2 and 7.5(d). See Formal Opinion 87 and 178.

The mechanisms to detect and deal with conflicts of interest do not appear to be sufficient to comply with the requirements of RPC 1.10. See Formal Opinion 109 and 145. It appears that the current structure would not constitute a regular law firm for the purpose of splitting fees under RPC 1.5(e) and that the proposed fee splitting arrangement would not be in compliance with the rules. See Formal Opinion 10.

Concerns were also raised about the ability to comply with RPC 1.14 and/or equivalent requirements for each state as your proposal was currently structured, as well as RPC 1.6 (to the extent that alternative modes of communication are not readily encouraged). See Informal Opinion 91-1.

Making suggestions on how to rework your proposal to be in compliance with the RPCs would constitute the provision of legal advice that is specifically beyond the authority of the Committee.