Could a Kentucky attorney practice law under a trade name in the mid-1980s?

Plain-English summary

An attorney questioned the continued vitality of DR 2-101(B), which prohibited practice under a trade name. The Committee noted that Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1) provided that, except for Ethical Considerations and Disciplinary Rules in conflict with Rule 3.135, such matters were governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, and that Kentucky then used the 1969 version of the Code. The request had first been referred to the Attorney's Advertising Commission, which administers SCR 3.135; that body told the requestor to take the matter to the Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee sought guidance from the Board under SCR 3.530(2). The Board concluded that the Disciplinary Rule is clear on its face, and that the request presented a legal question concerning the effect of SCR 3.135 on the Code, as well as potential constitutional questions, which neither the Ethics Committee nor the Board had jurisdiction to address. In the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court, the Board concluded that an advisory opinion should issue referring the requestor to DR 2-101(B), a procedure meant to facilitate presenting the legal and constitutional questions to the Supreme Court under SCR 3.530(5).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985 under Kentucky's former Code of Professional Responsibility (in effect 1971 to 1990), before the Kentucky Bar Association's 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. The opinion itself flagged unresolved legal and constitutional questions about the trade-name prohibition. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the rule allow a Kentucky lawyer to practice under a trade name in 1985?

A: No. The opinion concluded that DR 2-101(B) of the then-current Code prohibited practice under a trade name and referred the requestor to that rule.

Q: Did the Committee resolve whether that prohibition was constitutional?

A: No. The Board concluded the request raised legal and constitutional questions that neither the Ethics Committee nor the Board had jurisdiction to address, and left them for the Supreme Court.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101(B) of the former Code, which prohibited practicing under a trade name, while invoking the jurisdictional limits in SCR 3.530 and the interplay with the advertising regime in SCR 3.135. The modern analog is Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads, which now permits a trade name that is not false or misleading) read with Model Rule 7.1 (no false or misleading communications). The analysis turned on the text of the then-current rule, not on a policy judgment by the Committee.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-101(B) (former Code, 1969 version)
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads); MR 7.1 (communications about services)

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-377: Mediation Corporation and Trade Name
• KBA Ethics Op. E-299: Umbrella Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-302.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-302
Issued: May 1985

This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was
in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current version of the
Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130 (available at
http://www.kybar.org), especially Rules 7.01-7.50 and the Attorneys' Advertising
Commission Regulations, before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May an attorney practice under a trade name?

Answer:

No.

References:

Code of Professional Responsibility (1969). DR 2-101(B)

OPINION
An attorney has questioned the continued vitality of DR 2-101 (B) which prohibits
practice under a trade name. Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1) provides that "except for Ethical
Considerations and Disciplinary Rules in conflict with Rule 3.135" such matters should be
governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. At the present time, Kentucky utilizes the
1969 version of the Code.
When the attorney's request was made, the matter was referred to the Attorney's
Advertising Commission, which administers SCR 3.135. That body informed the requestor that
this matter should be addressed to the Ethics Committee.
The Ethics Committee sought guidance on this matter from the Board pursuant to the tenor
of SCR 3.530(2). The Board concluded that the DR is clear on its face, and that the request
presents a legal question concerning the effect of SCR 3.135 on the Code as well as potential
Constitutional questions, which neither the Ethics Committee nor the Board has jurisdiction to
address. In the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court, the Board concluded that an
Advisory Opinion should issue referring the requestor to DR 2-101(B). This procedure will
facilitate the presentation of legal and Constitutional questions to the Supreme Court pursuant to
SCR 3.530(5).

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky
Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530 (or its predecessor
rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.