Can out-of-state lawyers establish a Washington law practice with a Washington lawyer, and how must the firm name and advertising handle their non-admission?

Plain-English summary

A Washington lawyer was approached by a two-partner Texas law firm. The Texas lawyers, not licensed in Washington, wanted to establish a Washington personal injury practice with the inquiring lawyer through a multistate firm or other relationship.

The committee opined on five points. First, the Rules do not preclude a Washington lawyer from membership or association with a firm that provides legal services in multiple states, but RPC 5.5 precludes a lawyer or firm from assisting a person who is not a member of the Washington Bar "in the performance" of activity in Washington that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, and RPC 5.4 addresses the professional independence of a lawyer. Second, RPC 7.5 does not preclude the firm name from including only the Texas lawyers, but RPC 7.5(b) requires that the identification of lawyers in an office of the firm indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice where the office is located; the committee pointed to Formal Opinion 178 (1984) for further guidance. Third, a firm doing business only in Washington with two non-admitted partners did not theoretically appear to violate the Rules, subject to the RPC 5.5 and 5.4 points, with the same firm-name rule applying if the Washington lawyer is named, and advertising governed by RPC 7.1(a). Fourth, an advertisement containing a lawyer's photo but not referring to the lawyer's authority to practice in Washington may be misleading because it may omit a material fact (RPC 7.1(a)). Fifth, the committee was aware of no constraint on a Washington-licensed lawyer serving as a partner or employee in more than one firm, subject to the conflict-of-interest rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Note that Washington later adopted multijurisdictional-practice provisions in RPC 5.5; confirm the current rule text before relying on the unauthorized-practice analysis here.

Common questions

Q: Can a Washington lawyer join a multistate firm with out-of-state lawyers?

A: The committee concluded the Rules do not preclude it, but the firm may not assist non-members in the unauthorized practice of law in Washington (RPC 5.5) and must respect professional independence (RPC 5.4).

Q: Can the firm name list only the out-of-state lawyers?

A: Yes. The committee said RPC 7.5 does not preclude that, but RPC 7.5(b) requires the identification of lawyers in a Washington office to indicate the jurisdictional limitations of those not licensed there; it cited Formal Opinion 178 (1984).

Q: What about an ad with an out-of-state lawyer's photo?

A: The committee said an advertisement with a lawyer's photo that does not refer to the lawyer's authority to practice in Washington may be misleading by omitting a material fact, under RPC 7.1(a).

Q: Can a Washington lawyer be in more than one firm?

A: The committee said it was aware of no constraint under the Rules on a Washington-licensed lawyer serving as a partner or employee in more than one firm, subject to the conflict-of-interest rules.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law, ABA Model Rule 5.5) and RPC 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer, ABA Model Rule 5.4) to a multistate firm structure, and the firm-name and advertising rules RPC 7.5(b) (firm names and letterheads, ABA Model Rule 7.5) and RPC 7.1(a) (communications concerning a lawyer's services, ABA Model Rule 7.1). It cited WSBA Formal Opinion 178 (1984) on the firm-name disclosure point.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law); Washington RPC 5.5
• ABA Model Rule 5.4 (professional independence of a lawyer); Washington RPC 5.4
• ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads); Washington RPC 7.5(b)
• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Washington RPC 7.1(a)

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 178 (1984): firm-name disclosure for out-of-jurisdiction lawyers.

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1015: Out-of-State Associated Office
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1076: Firm Names and Letterhead
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1165: Aiding Unauthorized Practice
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1146: Inactive Out-of-State Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1106

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1912
Year Issued: 2000
RPC(s): RPC 5.4; 5.5; 7.1(a); 7.5(b); Formal Opinion 178
Subject: Establishment of law firm in Washington by out-of-state lawyers

The inquiring lawyer was approached by a Texas law firm consisting of two partners.

The Texas lawyers are not licensed to practice law in Washington state. The Texas lawyers are interested in establishing a practice in Washington. They seek, with the inquiring lawyer, to establish a Washington personal injury law practice through a multi-state firm or other relationship. The committee opined that:

1. The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC’s) do not preclude a Washington lawyer from membership or association with a firm that provides legal services in multiple states. RPC 5.5 does preclude a lawyer firm assisting a person who is not a member of the Washington Bar "in the performance" of activity in this state that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. See also RPC 5.4 regarding the professional independence of a lawyer.

2. RPC 7.5 does not preclude the name of the firm from including only the Texas lawyers, however, RPC 7.5(b) requires that "identification of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located." For further guidance in this regard see Formal Opinion 178 (1984).

3. The third question suggests that the firm would only do business in Washington, with two firm partners not admitted to practice in the State. Theoretically, this does not appear to be a violation of RPC, but note reference to RPC 5.5 and 5.4 above. The issue of firm name is addressed above. The same rule regarding firm name would apply should the Washington lawyer be identified in the firm name. Advertising of such a firm is governed by RPC 7.1(a).

4. The committee believes an advertisement that contains a photo of a lawyer, but does not refer to the lawyer’s authority to practice law in WA, may be misleading because it may omit a material fact. . See RPC 7.1(a).

5. The committee is aware of no constraints under the RPCs with respect to a Washington licensed lawyer serving as either a partner or an employee/associate in more than one firm, subject of conflicts of interest rules of the RPCs.