Can separate solo lawyers who share some cases describe their relationship on a letterhead as practicing 'in association with' each other without being partners?

Plain-English summary

A sole practitioner who "associates" with two other attorneys asked whether he could put on his letterhead, below his name, the words "An individual, general practice in association with [attorney Y] and [attorney Z]." The three lawyers kept separate practices in separate towns and intended to share some cases by experience, preference, and location, working out fee sharing case by case. They did not intend a formal partnership; they accepted liability for each other's negligence in all cases, but not for each other's business debts such as rent or equipment.

The Commission analyzed the question under Maine Bar Rule 3.9, which governs publicity, advertising, and solicitation and generally permits advertising that is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. Whether the proposed wording was misleading turned on Rule 3.9(b)(2) (omitting a material fact), Rule 3.9(b)(3) (creating an unjustified expectation), and Rule 3.9(b)(6) (an implication likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived).

The Commission distinguished a 1980 Grievance Commission opinion that found the bare expression "Law Associates" ambiguous and capable of misleading readers into thinking the lawyers were partners. Here, the Commission concluded the proposed wording was sufficiently specific to avoid an implication likely to deceive an ordinary prudent person under Rule 3.9(b)(6), and that no other provision of Rule 3.9(b) would be violated. The statement that the lawyer has "an individual, general practice" removed any suggestion of a partnership that "in association with" might otherwise carry. The Commission reached this conclusion while aware that ABA Informal Opinion No. 1265 reads DR 2-102(A)(4) to permit listing lawyers on a firm letterhead only if they are partners, associates, or "Of Counsel"; it concluded DR 2-102(A)(4) has no direct counterpart in the Maine Bar Rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, before Maine's replacement of the former Maine Bar Rules with the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (effective August 1, 2009). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 separate solo lawyers describe themselves as practicing 'in association with' each other?

A: The opinion concluded yes, on the proposed wording. A letterhead reading "an individual, general practice in association with" two named lawyers is not misleading under Rule 3.9.

Q: What kept the phrasing from implying a partnership?

A: The opinion concluded that the words "an individual, general practice" removed any suggestion of a partnership that "in association with" might otherwise imply.

Q: How is this different from using 'Law Associates'?

A: The opinion distinguished a 1980 opinion that found the bare term "Law Associates" ambiguous and potentially misleading; the more specific wording here avoided that ambiguity.

Q: Does the ABA's view on letterhead listings control in Maine?

A: The opinion concluded it does not. While ABA Informal Opinion No. 1265 reads DR 2-102(A)(4) to limit who may be listed on a firm letterhead, the Commission found DR 2-102(A)(4) has no direct counterpart in the Maine Bar Rules.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Maine Bar Rule 3.9 (publicity, advertising, and solicitation), particularly subsections 3.9(b)(2), 3.9(b)(3), and 3.9(b)(6) on misleading or deceptive communications. These correspond to ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services must not be false or misleading) and Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). The opinion contrasts the Maine rule with ABA Model Code DR 2-102(A)(4).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 (communications about services); Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• Maine Bar Rule 3.9, including 3.9(b)(2), 3.9(b)(3), 3.9(b)(6)
• ABA Model Code DR 2-102(A)(4)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion No. 1265: DR 2-102(A)(4) permits listing lawyers on a firm letterhead only if partners, associates, or "Of Counsel"
• Maine Grievance Commission advisory opinion (1980): "Law Associates" letterhead found ambiguous

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 90-357: The 'Of Counsel' Designation
• ABA Formal Op. 507: Office Sharing With Lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://mebaroverseers.org/attorney_services/opinion.html?id=91018

Original opinion text

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

Issued by the Professional Ethics Commission

Date Issued: March 14, 1985

Question

The Commission has been asked by attorney X, a sole practitioner who "associates" with two other attorneys, for an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of using on his letterhead (below his name) the following words:

An individual, general practice in association with [attorney Y] and [attorney Z].

The three attorneys in question have separate practices in separate towns but intend to share some cases based on their respective experience, preference, and location. Fee sharing is to be worked out on a case by case basis. It is not intended by the attorneys that their relationship be a formal partnership. Although they fully accept liability for each other's negligence (not only in shared cases, but in all cases any of them handles), they do not accept liability for each other's debts incurred in the practice of law such as for rent, equipment purchases, or other business transactions.

Opinion

Maine Bar Rule 3.9 now controls issues of publicity, advertising, and solicitation by lawyers. Its general approach is to permit any advertising which is not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive. Whether the words quoted above are misleading or deceptive depends on whether they omit to state any material fact necessary to make them not misleading [Rule 3.9 (b)(2)], or are intended or are likely to create an unjustified expectation [Rule 3.9(b)(3)], or contain a representation or implication that is likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived thereby [Rule 3.9 (b)(6)].

In a 1980 advisory opinion written by the Grievance Commission a similar factual situation was presented except that the proposed letterhead would have used simply the expression "Law Associates." In that opinion the Commission held that the expression was ambiguous and could mislead the reader into believing that the attorneys were actually partners.

In the present variation of these facts this Commission concludes that the proposed wording is sufficiently specific to prevent "an implication . . . likely to cause an ordinary prudent person to misunderstand or be deceived . . ." within the meaning of Rule 3.9(b)(6). Nor do we believe that any of the other provisions of Rule 3.9(b) would be violated. In this case the statement that the attorney has "an individual, general practice" removes any suggestion of a partnership that the words "in association with" by themselves might otherwise imply.

We have reached the foregoing conclusion while aware that ABA Informal Opinion No. 1265 holds that "DR 2-102(A)(4) permits the listing or identification of lawyers on firm letterheads only if the lawyers are partners . . . or associates or have the relationship described as `Of Counsel' or equivalent." We conclude that DR 2-102(A)(4) has no direct counterpart in the Maine Bar Rules.