What letterhead and office-sharing arrangements may a New Jersey lawyer use: an accountant's name on a shared door, a sign at a realtor's office, an out-of-state bar admission, or an out-of-state P.O.-box 'branch'?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addressed four inquiries connected to the then-new DR 2-101 et seq. First, whether an accountant who rents office space in a law firm's suite may have his name on a common entrance door with the firm: the Committee found that permissible so long as it does not tend to create the appearance of a partnership or association, which would be improper under DR 3-103(A), and cautioned that care must be taken to avoid that appearance.

Second, whether a lawyer with his principal office elsewhere may post a sign on a realtor's premises (below the realtor's sign) indicating he maintains an office there, using the realtor's clerical staff: the Committee held its earlier Opinion 129 was not made ineffective by the DR 2-101 amendments, which removed the general advertising ban while still prohibiting specific improprieties. On these facts the public could well assume an improper relationship between the attorney and the realtor, or that the lawyer was in the real estate business at that office, contrary to DR 3-103(A) and DR 2-102(D); the arrangement could lead to the same improper result as Opinion 129.

Third, whether a notation of admission to a bar other than New Jersey may appear next to an attorney's name on the letterhead: as a general proposition the Committee found no impropriety, so long as it does not violate other rules such as DR 2-101(A), (B)(6), or (C)(4). Fourth, whether a New Jersey firm may indicate a branch office in a foreign jurisdiction where it has only a post office box and no actual office: the Committee held such a notation improper on its face as deceptive under DR 2-101(A), and noted that the reverse (an out-of-state attorney claiming a New Jersey office while holding only a P.O. box) would be deceptive and would run afoul of R. 1:21-1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. It applied DR 2-101, DR 2-102, and DR 3-103(A); in current New Jersey terms the firm-name and letterhead rules correspond to RPC 7.5, truthful communication to RPC 7.1, and the law-related-services and partnership-with-nonlawyer concerns to RPC 5.4 and RPC 5.7. 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 an accountant's name share the law firm's entrance door?

A: Yes, so long as it does not create the appearance of a partnership or association between the lawyer and the accountant, which DR 3-103(A) would make improper.

Q: Can a lawyer keep a sign and office at a realtor's premises?

A: The opinion found that arrangement likely improper, because the public could assume an improper attorney-realtor relationship or that the lawyer was in the real estate business there.

Q: Can a lawyer note an out-of-state bar admission on the letterhead?

A: Generally yes, so long as the notation is not deceptive and does not violate the advertising rules.

Q: Can a firm list an out-of-state "branch" that is only a P.O. box?

A: No. The opinion held that improper on its face as deceptive under DR 2-101(A), because there is no actual office there.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101 (advertising), DR 2-102 (letterheads and signs), DR 2-102(D) (dual occupation), and DR 3-103(A) (partnership with a nonlawyer), with Opinion 129. In current New Jersey terms, the firm-name and letterhead rules correspond to RPC 7.5, truthful communication to RPC 7.1, and the nonlawyer-association concerns to RPC 5.4 and RPC 5.7. The holding split the four scenarios between permissible (shared door without partnership appearance; truthful out-of-state admission) and improper (realtor-office setup; fictitious P.O.-box branch).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 5.7 / NJ RPC 5.7 (responsibilities regarding law-related services)
• DR 2-101, DR 2-102(D), DR 3-103(A) (as in effect 1979)

Court rules:

• R. 1:21-1 (who may practice; bona fide office)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinions 9, 23, 129, 228 (relationships between attorneys and nonlegal businesses)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 447: Putting "C.P.A." on a Lawyer's Letterhead
• NJ ACPE Op. 442: Letterhead Stating Various Court Admissions
• NJ ACPE Op. 435: Practicing Law Under a Trade Name

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp433-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

104 N.J.L.J. 204, August 30, 1979

OPINION 433

Accountant's Name on Law Firm Entrance; Attorney's Second Office with Realtor; Out-of-state Admission on Letterhead; Out-of-state P. O. Box on Letterhead

This opinion deals with four inquiries, each with some relationship to the new Disciplinary Rule DR 2-101, et seq.

(1) The first inquiry is whether it would be proper for the name of an accountant, who rents office space in the suite of a law firm, to appear on the common entrance door with the law firm. In our opinion the names of the accountant and law firm might properly be located on a common entrance door so long as it does not tend to create the appearance of a partnership or association, which would be improper under DR 3-103(A). The impropriety of such relationship between attorneys and those in nonlegal businesses and professions is indicated by our Opinions 9, 86 N.J.L.J. 617 (1963); 23, 87 N.J.L.J. 19 (1964); 129, 91 N.J.L.J. 365 (1968) and 228, 95 N.J.L.J. 70 (1972), and care must be exercised so as not to create the appearance of such relationship.

(2) The second inquiry is similar and essentially is whether Opinion 129 is still effective after the recent adoption of DR 2-101 (Publicity and Advertising as amended by the Supreme Court). Specifically, the inquirer asks whether an attorney who has his principal office elsewhere, may also indicate, by a sign on the entrance to a realtor's premises, that the attorney maintains an office within those premises. The sign is hung just below the sign advertising the realtor's business, and the attorney uses clerical and secretarial personnel of the realtor. Opinion 129 was not made ineffective through the amendments to DR 2-101. DR 2-101, as amended, merely removed the general ban on lawyer advertising while still prohibiting specific improprieties in advertising. DR 2-101(A) and DR 2-102(A). Opinion 129 dealt with the creation of appearance of an improper relationship between an attorney and the real estate business or broker through the set up of the office and operation considered as a whole. The impropriety of the relationship is defined in DR 3-103(A) as well as the opinions cited in the answer to question 1 above, including Opinion 129 and DR 2-102(D). We think that the facts assumed in this second inquiry might well lead to the same result. However, from the facts stated the public could very well assume from the general appearance of the operation, taken as a whole, that there was a relationship between the attorney and the realtor which was improper under DR 3-103(A) or that the lawyer was engaged in the real estate business at that office, contrary to the above cited opinions or DR 2-102(D).

(3) The third inquiry is whether a notation indicating admission to a state bar other than New Jersey may properly appear next to an attorney's name on the attorney's or firm's letterhead. As a general proposition, such notation would constitute no impropriety so long as it does not violate other Disciplinary Rules, such as DR 2-101(A), (B)(6) (deceptive) or (C)(4) (showmanship).

(4) The fourth inquiry concerns the propriety of indicating on an attorney's letterhead that a branch office of a New Jersey firm is located in a foreign jurisdiction where the inquirer has no office, but merely a post office box. Such a notation on firm letterhead would be improper on its face as being deceptive, in violation of DR 2-101(A). We would also advise the inquirer that if the situation were reversed, i.e., if an out-of-state attorney indicated that he had an office in New Jersey for the practice of law but, in fact, had only a post office box in this State, that attorney would be prohibited from practicing law in New Jersey under R. 1:21-1. Thus, any indication on his letterhead that he was admitted to practice law in New Jersey, or that he had an office in New Jersey, would be obviously deceptive and misleading, and violative of DR 2-101(A), among others.