Can a Washington sole practitioner advertise an affiliation with an out-of-state firm, or have the office phone answered 'attorneys at law'?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee addressed two related questions about how a Washington lawyer could describe the practice. First, it concluded that a Washington lawyer who was not a partner of, and had no employer/employee relationship with, an out-of-state law firm could not advertise an affiliation with non-Washington lawyers.
Second, it noted that a sole practitioner could not have the office telephone answered "attorneys at law," because doing so would imply that there was more than one lawyer.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985, before 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a Washington solo advertise an affiliation with an out-of-state firm?
A: Not on these facts. The committee concluded that a lawyer who was neither a partner nor an employee of the out-of-state firm could not advertise an affiliation with non-Washington lawyers.
Q: Can a sole practitioner have the phone answered "attorneys at law"?
A: No. The committee said a sole practitioner could not do so because it would imply that there was more than one lawyer.
Q: What was the committee's concern with both practices?
A: Each would convey an inaccurate picture of the practice, an affiliation that did not exist in the first instance, and more than one lawyer in the second.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies RPC 7.5, Washington's rule on firm names and letterhead and on communications about a lawyer's practice (the analog of Model Rule 7.5). The committee read it to bar a solo lawyer from claiming an affiliation with out-of-state lawyers that did not exist and from using a telephone greeting that implied a multi-lawyer firm.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads; communications about a lawyer's practice)
- Washington RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1015: out-of-state associated office
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1018: firm brochure and RPC 7.3
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=13
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 901
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s): RPC 7.5
Subject: Advertising affiliation with out of state law firm; sole practitioner's phone answered "attorneys at law"
The Committee was of the opinion that a Washington lawyer who was not a partner nor had an employer/employee relationship with an out-of state law firm could not advertise an affiliation with non-Washington lawyers. The Committee also noted that a sole practitioner could not have his telephone answered "attorneys at law" because it would imply that there were more than one lawyer.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1985 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.