Can a multistate law firm advertise to its Oregon clients that lawyers who are not Oregon State Bar members are available?

Plain-English summary

A multistate firm includes lawyers resident in Oregon who are Oregon State Bar members and lawyers resident in other states who are members of their own state bars but not of the Oregon State Bar. The opinion asks whether the firm may advertise the availability of the non-Oregon members to its Oregon clients, and answers yes, qualified.

The opinion explains that multistate law firms are clearly permitted under Oregon RPC 7.5(b), which lets a firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction use the same name in each, provided the identification of lawyers indicates the jurisdictional limitations of those not licensed where the office sits. The fact that a particular lawyer is not an Oregon State Bar member does not prevent that lawyer from engaging in the activities permitted by Oregon RPC 5.5(c) and (d), which authorize various temporary and law-authorized cross-border services.

The limit is on misrepresentation. A firm may not state or imply that an out-of-state lawyer is in fact an Oregon State Bar member unless that is true. Oregon RPC 7.1 bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, Oregon RPC 5.5(b) bars a non-admitted lawyer from holding out as admitted in Oregon, and Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3) bars dishonest or misleading conduct.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Oregon rules, advertising the availability of out-of-state firm lawyers to Oregon clients is permitted, subject to accurate disclosure of each lawyer's licensure. The analysis turns on whether the advertisement is accurate: it must not imply Oregon admission that does not exist, and the firm must indicate jurisdictional limitations under RPC 7.5(b). Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 7.5, 5.5, and 7.1 before relying on any specific point.

Common questions

Q: Can my multistate firm tell Oregon clients that our out-of-state lawyers are available?

A: Qualified yes. The opinion concludes a multistate firm may advertise the availability of non-Oregon members, who may perform the activities RPC 5.5(c) and (d) permit.

Q: What can't the advertisement say?

A: It cannot state or imply that an out-of-state lawyer is an Oregon State Bar member unless that is true. The opinion grounds this in RPC 7.1, 5.5(b), and 8.4(a)(3).

Q: Do we have to flag which lawyers are not Oregon-licensed?

A: Yes. The opinion notes RPC 7.5(b) requires the firm's identification of lawyers to indicate the jurisdictional limitations of those not licensed in the office's jurisdiction.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 7.5(b) (multistate firm names), corresponding to Model Rule 7.5; Oregon RPC 5.5(b), (c), and (d) (cross-border and unauthorized practice), corresponding to Model Rule 5.5; Oregon RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications), corresponding to Model Rule 7.1; and Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3) (dishonesty or misrepresentation), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 7.5(b) / Model Rule 7.5 (multistate firm names)
• Oregon RPC 5.5(b), (c), (d) / Model Rule 5.5 (cross-border practice; holding out)
• Oregon RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
• Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(3) / Model Rule 8.4 (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation)

Cases:

• Appell v. Reiner, 43 NJ 313, 204 A2d 146 (1964)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Ethics Op. No. 316 (1967)

See also

• OSB Ethics Op. 2022-200: Remote Work and Unauthorized Practice
• ABA Formal Op. 495: Lawyers Working Remotely

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-103.pdf