Can a law firm with offices only in North Carolina submit a directory listing that includes attorneys in the firm who are not licensed in North Carolina?

Plain-English summary

MH Inc., a non-attorney publisher, compiled addresses and biographical information about attorneys and law firms, organized by geographic location. For firms with offices in North Carolina and other states it included information about all firm members, including those not licensed in North Carolina. The inquiry asked whether MH Inc. could publish biographical sketches of attorneys in a firm that maintained offices only in North Carolina when those attorneys were not admitted in North Carolina and confined their practice to the federal courts.

The opinion first observed that the Ethics Committee had no authority to regulate MH Inc., a non-attorney; at most it could advise what information attorneys may properly submit for publication. It then concluded that Rule 2.3(c) barred a firm with offices in North Carolina from listing the name of an attorney not licensed in the state on its letterhead or in its firm name, and that the comment to the Rule extended this prohibition to any "firm communication." A firm with offices only in North Carolina therefore could not properly submit biographical information to MH Inc. about firm attorneys who were not licensed in the state.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the North Carolina State Bar's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The provision it applies (Rule 2.3(c), firm names and letterhead) has since been renumbered and revised (the corresponding Model Rule is 7.5). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a North Carolina firm list attorneys not licensed in the state in a legal directory?

A: No. The opinion concluded that a firm maintaining offices only in North Carolina could not submit directory information about firm attorneys who were not licensed in North Carolina.

Q: Did the firm-name rule reach beyond letterhead and firm names?

A: Yes. The opinion read the comment to Rule 2.3(c) as extending the prohibition to any "firm communication," which it treated as covering a directory listing.

Q: Could the Ethics Committee regulate the directory publisher itself?

A: No. The opinion stated the committee had no authority over MH Inc., a non-attorney, and could advise only on what information attorneys may properly submit for publication.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied North Carolina Rule 2.3(c), which governed the listing of attorneys in firm names, on letterhead, and in firm communications (corresponding to Model Rule 7.5). The analysis turned on the rule's comment, which the opinion read to extend the listing prohibition to any firm communication, including a directory submission.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• North Carolina Rule 2.3(c) (firm names, letterhead, and firm communications)
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)

See also

• NC Ethics Op. RPC 126: letterhead listing of nonlawyers
• NC Ethics Op. RPC 85: of counsel relationships between lawyers in different towns
• NC Ethics Op. RPC 116: partnership between lawyers

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/rpc-68/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

MH Inc. publishes addresses and biographical information concerning attorneys and law firms. Information concerning law firms appears in the MH Inc. publication by geographic location. As to firms with offices in North Carolina and other states, MH Inc. includes information about all attorney members of the firm, including those not licensed in North Carolina. May MH Inc. publish biographical sketches of attorneys who are members of firms which maintain offices only in North Carolina, if the attorneys are not admitted to the North Carolina Bar and confine their practice exclusively to the federal courts?

Opinion:

The Ethics Committee of the North Carolina State Bar has no authority to regulate MH Inc., a non-attorney. At most, the committee can advise what information attorneys may properly submit to MH Inc. for publication. Rule 2.3(c) provides that a law firm maintaining offices in North Carolina may not list the name of an attorney not licensed to practice in the state on its letterhead or in its firm name. The comment to the Rule makes it clear that this prohibition applies to any "firm communication." Therefore, a firm with offices only in North Carolina may not properly submit biographical information to MH Inc. concerning attorneys in the firm who are not licensed in North Carolina.