Three of us share office space, stationery, a secretary, and a phone line, but we're not partners. Can we use shared 'Law Offices' letterhead listing all three names, and can the secretary just answer 'Law Offices'?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked the panel about the propriety of stationery, signs, and secretarial arrangements he shared with two other lawyers. The three lawyers shared stationery, secretarial support, office expenses, and signage, but the attorney stated that no partnership agreement or employer-employee relationship existed among them. His stationery showed the words "Law Offices" at the top, with one attorney's name and the office address underneath, the three attorneys' names in a column at the left margin, and a single phone number at the right margin.

The panel quoted DR 2-102(B), which bars a lawyer in private practice from practicing under a name "that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name," and DR 2-102(C), which bars a lawyer from holding himself out as having a partnership with other lawyers unless they are in fact partners. The panel explained that lawyers who share office space without being partners or members of a professional corporation must show that independence through separate letterheads, and it found that the submitted letterhead violated both DR 2-102(B) and DR 2-102(C).

On the office signs, the panel could not render an opinion because no pictures or diagrams of the signs were submitted. On the final question, the panel held it was proper for the shared secretary to answer the phone for all three lawyers simply by saying "Law Offices," because that greeting alone does not contribute to a misapprehension that the three lawyers are partners or members of a single professional corporation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the Rhode Island Supreme Court's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it applies the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility's Disciplinary Rules then in effect. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 office-sharing lawyers who aren't partners use one combined letterhead listing all their names under "Law Offices"?

A: No. The opinion holds that this violates DR 2-102(B) (misleading as to identity of the practicing lawyer or lawyers) and DR 2-102(C) (holding out a partnership that doesn't exist); each lawyer must use a separate letterhead.

Q: Is it a problem for our shared receptionist to answer the phone as "Law Offices" for all of us?

A: No, according to this opinion. The panel found that greeting proper because, standing alone, it does not create the impression that the lawyers are partners or members of one professional corporation.

Q: Will the panel review our proposed office signage for compliance?

A: Not without more information. The opinion states the panel could not render an opinion on the signs because no pictures or diagrams were submitted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies DR 2-102(B) and DR 2-102(C) of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, then in force in Rhode Island, which respectively bar practicing under a name misleading as to the identity of the practicing lawyer or lawyers, and bar holding out a partnership that does not in fact exist.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• RI DR 2-102(B) (practicing under a name misleading as to identity of the lawyer or lawyers)
• RI DR 2-102(C) (holding out a partnership that does not in fact exist)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2088-05.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION 88-5, REQUEST #27
Issued May 13, 1988

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning the propriety of certain office stationery, signs and secretarial arrangements. The attorney advises the Panel that he shares stationery, secretarial support, office expenses and signs with two other lawyers. The attorney indicates, however, that no partnership agreements or employer-employee relationships exist among the three lawyers.

The attorney first directs the Panel's attention to his stationery. It shows the words "Law Offices" at the top, with one attorney's name and the office address underneath. At the left margin the three attorney names appear in a column; a single area code and number are shown at the right margin.

Disciplinary Rule 2-102(B) provides, in pertinent part that "[a] lawyer in private practice shall not practice under ... a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name . . ." Disciplinary Rule 2-102(C) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not hold himself out as having a partnership with one or more lawyers unless they are in fact partners."

To comport with the requirements of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers who share space but are not associated as partners or members of a professional corporation must evidence this independence through the use of separate letterheads. In light of the circumstances presented to the Panel the letterhead submitted for review violates DR 2-102(B) and DR 2-102(C).

The attorney's second inquiry focuses on the law office signs, but in the absence of pictures or diagrams of the signs, it is impossible for the Panel to render an opinion.

The attorney's final query is whether it is proper for the secretary to answer the phone for all three lawyers simply by saying "Law Offices." The Panel takes the position that this is proper, since it does not contribute to the misapprehension that the three lawyers who share space are partners or members of a single professional corporation.

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.