Can a firm with offices in more than one state form a partnership with a West Virginia lawyer and use the same firm name in West Virginia?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry came from a firm that wanted to form a partnership with an attorney licensed in West Virginia and having offices there, and to use the firm's name in West Virginia while setting forth its members' limitations to practice as required by the New York Code. The firm asked whether the West Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility permitted forming such a partnership and using the same firm name in each jurisdiction, provided the other requirements were followed.

The Committee enclosed the applicable provision of the West Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and concluded that, under DR 2-102(D), the proposed course of action would not be ethically improper as long as the jurisdictional limitations are set forth.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1978, before West Virginia replaced its Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 1, 1989, and before later rule revisions, including the comprehensive 2015 amendments. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm with offices in more than one state use the same firm name in West Virginia?

A: The opinion concluded that, under DR 2-102(D), the proposed course of action was not ethically improper as long as the jurisdictional limitations are set forth.

Q: What condition did the opinion attach to using the same firm name across states?

A: The opinion conditioned its conclusion on the jurisdictional limitations being set forth, consistent with DR 2-102(D).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-102(D) of the West Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which governed the firm name and letterhead of a partnership whose members are licensed in different jurisdictions. The Committee did not elaborate beyond stating that the proposed arrangement was permissible provided the jurisdictional limitations were set forth.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Code of Professional Responsibility, as cited):

• DR 2-102(D) (firm name and letterhead of a partnership whose members are licensed in different jurisdictions)

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 01-423: Forming partnerships with foreign lawyers
• ABA Formal Op. 94-388: Relationships among law firms

Source

• Landing page: https://wvodc.org/Legal-Ethics-Opinion
• Original PDF: https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/66a7ea7e4fc34d7871386044.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

UNPUBLISHED LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 78-11

In response to your inquiry of August 14, 1978, I enclose a copy of the applicable provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Under DR 2-102(D), your proposed course of action would not be ethically improper as long as the jurisdictional limitations are set forth.

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.