Can a law firm keep a retired partner's name in the firm name and list the retired partner on letterhead as a mediator, and can that partner consult for the firm without malpractice-fund coverage?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2016. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Lawyer A is a former partner in the AB&C Law Firm who has retired from the active practice of law but continues to practice as a mediator, consults with the firm's lawyers, and receives a salary from the firm. Lawyer A's name is still used in the firm name, and the letterhead identifies Lawyer A as available solely as a mediator. Lawyer A no longer maintains Professional Liability Fund (PLF) coverage, which ORS 9.080 requires of lawyers engaged in the private practice of law. The opinion asks whether the firm may keep Lawyer A's name in the firm name and list Lawyer A as a mediator (answer: yes), and whether Lawyer A may consult within the firm without PLF coverage (answer: yes, qualified).
The opinion applies Oregon RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterhead) and Oregon RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications). It concludes the rules permit Lawyer A's name in the firm name as long as the use is not false or misleading, noting that even after Oregon RPC 7.5 was amended to track ABA Model Rule 7.5, a firm may still use a retired lawyer's name. The firm may hold out Lawyer A as available solely as a mediator if that is true and Lawyer A's conduct is lawful.
On the PLF question, the opinion reasons that coverage is required only of lawyers who engage in the private practice of law, and because mediation is not the practice of law, a lawyer who limits services to mediation need not carry PLF coverage. Lawyer A may also give consulting advice to others in the firm's legal practice without personally practicing law. The opinion adds that affected clients should be informed that Lawyer A's participation is advisory only and that Lawyer A does not assume responsibility for handling any client's matter.
In practice
This opinion (revised 2016) interprets the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, but it is more than five years old, so readers should verify the current rule and statute text before relying on specifics. The opinion holds that retaining a retired partner's name and a mediator designation is permitted where the representations are true and not misleading under Oregon RPC 7.1 and 7.5. Per the opinion, the PLF question turns on whether the retired lawyer engages in the private practice of law: mediation and advisory consulting within the firm are not, so coverage is not required, provided affected clients are told the retired lawyer's role is advisory only and carries no responsibility for the matter.
Common questions
Q: Can a law firm keep a retired partner's name in the firm name?
A: Yes. The opinion concludes Oregon RPC 7.5 and 7.1 permit keeping a retired former partner's name in the firm name as long as the use is not false or misleading, where the partner has retired from active practice and is not practicing at another firm.
Q: Can the letterhead list the retired partner as a mediator?
A: Yes, if true. The opinion concludes the firm may hold out the retired partner as available solely as a mediator if that representation is accurate and the partner's conduct is lawful.
Q: Does the retired partner need Professional Liability Fund coverage to mediate or consult?
A: No. The opinion concludes PLF coverage is required only for the private practice of law, and because mediation and advisory consulting are not the practice of law, the retired partner who limits services to those roles need not carry coverage.
Q: What should clients be told about the retired partner's role?
A: The opinion states affected clients should be informed that the retired partner's participation is advisory only and that the partner does not assume responsibility for handling any client's matter.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 7.5 (firm names, letterhead, and professional designations) and Oregon RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services), corresponding to Model Rules 7.5 and 7.1. It reads those rules together with ORS 9.080, which requires Professional Liability Fund coverage only of lawyers engaged in the private practice of law.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterhead)
- Oregon RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
Statutes:
- ORS 9.080 (Professional Liability Fund coverage for lawyers in private practice)
Cases:
- In re Kluge, 332 Or 251, 27 P3d 102 (2001)
- Balderree v. Oregon State Bar, 301 Or 155, 719 P2d 1300 (1986)
Other opinions cited:
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-65 (rev 2015): listing nonlawyer personnel on letterhead
- DC Bar Ethics Op. No. 277 (1997); Massachusetts Bar Ass'n Ethics Op. No. 81-5 (1981); Washington Advisory Op. No. 2164 (2007): retired partners in firm names
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-65: Nonlawyer Personnel on Letterhead
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-153: Insurer-Employed Lawyers and Firm Name
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-12: Firm Names and Office Sharing
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-169.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2016 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.