May an out-of-state corporate lawyer's business card show a corporate title alongside a Florida company address?

Plain-English summary

A member of The Florida Bar represented a national corporation moving its home office to Florida and asked whether full-time corporate personnel who are lawyers, but not admitted in Florida, could identify themselves on business cards as "associate counsel," "tax counsel," or similar, where the cards would bear the corporation's name and Florida address.

The committee first noted the question was close to the line of its jurisdiction, since it concerned the conduct of non-members and might turn on unauthorized practice of law. It gave a limited response directed at the advice the inquiring Florida lawyer would give. A majority observed that a person who engages in activities constituting the practice of law in Florida, particularly while using a Florida address, would be subject to the Integration Rule's admission requirement (comparing Opinion 70-3). Recognizing that corporations move their headquarters and employed staff between states, the committee concluded it would not be improper for a card showing the corporation and its Florida address to include the corporate attorney's position together with words such as "not admitted to practice in Florida" or similar disclaiming language.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it applied the former Integration Rule. The opinion carries an editorial note that lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22, and unauthorized practice is addressed by Rule 4-5.5. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can an in-house lawyer not admitted in Florida show a legal title on a company business card?

A: Under this opinion, yes, where the card carries a disclaimer such as "not admitted to practice in Florida." The committee found that arrangement not improper.

Q: Why does the disclaimer matter?

A: The committee reasoned that practicing law in Florida, especially while using a Florida address, triggers the admission requirement, so the card should not imply the person is admitted in Florida when he is not.

Background and rules framework

The opinion turned on the former Integration Rule's admission requirement and on how a corporate lawyer's title would read to the public, a letterhead-and-firm-identity question now addressed by Rule 4-7.21 (and the surrounding 4-7 advertising rules) and, for the practice-of-law dimension, Rule 4-5.5. The Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.5 and Rule 5.5.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Integration Rule [admission requirement; advertising now in Rules 4-7.11 through 4-7.22 per the opinion's note]

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 70-3: identification of out-of-state lawyers in Florida

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 70-55: Interstate Partnership Letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-70-44/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-70-44-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 70-44
January 8, 1971
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is not improper for a business card showing a corporation's name and Florida address to include identification of the corporate attorney's position. If the attorney is not licensed to practice in Florida a disclaimer to that effect should be included on the card.
Note: Lawyer advertising rules are now in Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-7.11 through 4-7.22.
Opinion: 70-3
Chairman Massey stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar inquires in relation to his representing a national corporation moving its home office from another state to Florida and seeking his advice as to whether full-time corporate personnel, who are lawyers but not admitted to The Florida Bar, may identify themselves by business card as "associate counsel," "tax counsel" or other appellations denoting the legal profession, but which cards would bear the name of the corporation and its address.
Technically, this inquiry may be beyond this Committee's jurisdiction because it involves the proposed conduct of others than a member of The Florida Bar. It may well be a situation wherein the crux of the matter lies within the realm of unauthorized practice of law.
It is, however, a close question as to whether, when a member of The Florida Bar must recommend to a client on an ethical problem for which the member may be ultimately responsible, it would fall within the scope of review of the Professional Ethics Committee. The Committee therefore will give a limited response to the inquirer which is specifically directed to advice to be rendered.
A majority of the Committee are of the opinion that in the event a person in behalf of a corporate employer is to engage in Florida in activities which constitute the practice of law, and particularly when such person utilizes a Florida address, he would be subject to the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, including its requirement for admission to practice of law in this state. Compare Florida Opinion 70-3.
On the other hand, the Committee is aware that many corporations will move their entire headquarters from state to state, including Florida, and their corporate staffs will contain employed attorneys not admitted to practice in the state to which the move is made. Considering the issue in this light, the Committee concludes it would not be improper for a business card showing the corporation and its Florida address to include the identification of the corporate attorney's position with the words "not admitted to practice in Florida" or similar disclaiming verbiage.