Can a Kentucky lawyer whose office is set back from the road place a dignified nameplate on a sign or post shared with other businesses?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether a lawyer whose office is set back from the main thoroughfare, so that the firm's nameplate is not visible to traffic, may place a dignified nameplate on a post or display used by other businesses in the same or adjacent buildings. It answered "Yes."

The opinion offered a literary aside, quoting A.E.W. Mason's 1920 novel The House of the Arrow on an older solicitor's horror at the suggestion of a brass plate on the firm's door, then observed that "the times have changed." In accord with the authorities it cited, the Committee answered the question in the affirmative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987 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's own header now directs readers to current Rules 7.01-7.50 and the Attorneys' Advertising Commission Regulations. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer put a nameplate on a shared sign with other businesses?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded a dignified nameplate on a post or display used by other businesses in the same or adjacent buildings is permissible.

Q: Does it matter that the office is hard to see from the road?

A: That was the premise of the request. The opinion approved the shared nameplate for an office set back from the main thoroughfare so the firm's own nameplate is not visible to traffic.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-102 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which governs professional notices, signs, and letterheads. The modern analog is Model Rule 7.5 on firm names and professional designations (now read together with Model Rule 7.1's bar on false or misleading communications). The opinion treats a dignified, accurate nameplate as a permissible professional notice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102 (former Code; professional notices and signs)
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Op. 1214 (1972); Alabama Op. 83-151 (1983)

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-319: Names on Firm Letterhead
• KBA Ethics Op. E-334: Talking Yellow Pages
• ABA Formal Op. 90-357: The 'Of Counsel' Designation

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-320.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-320
Issued: June 1987

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:

A lawyer's office is set back from the main thoroughfare so that the firm's
nameplate is not visible to traffic. The lawyer wishes to place a dignified name
plate on a post or display used by other businesses in the same or adjacent
buildings. Is this permissible?

Answer:

Yes.

References:

DR 2-102; ABA Informal Op. 1214(1972); Alabama Op. 83-151(1983).
OPINION

This question harkens back to A.E.W. Mason's The House of the Arrow (1920) which
related certain adventures at the firm of solicitors styled Frobisher & Haslitt. The following
excerpt recounts the reaction of the senior partner to a newcomer who suggested that the firm
ought to have a brass plate on the door:
"Mr. Haslitt's eyebrows rose half the height of his forehead towards his
thick white hair. He was really distressed by the Waberski incident, but this
suggestion, and from a partner in the firm, shocked him like sacrilege.
" 'My dear boy, what are you thinking of?' he expostulated. 'I hope I am
not one of those obstinate old fogeys who refuse to march with the times. We have
had, as you know, a telephone instrument recently installed in the junior clerk's
office. I believe that I myself proposed it. But a brass plate upon the door! My dear
Jim! Let us leave that to Harley Street and Southampton Row!' "
Obviously, the times have changed. In accord with the above-cited authorities, the question
is answered in the affirmative.

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.