Can lawyers in a firm use a separate letterhead that omits the firm name for certain cases, like collections?

Plain-English summary

A firm with a general civil practice had some lawyers who represented lenders and creditors in foreclosure and collection actions and others with a defense practice. The collection lawyers wanted to use, in those cases only, a separate letterhead showing only the individual lawyer's name and contact information, without the firm name or other lawyers, while continuing to practice from the firm's offices and using the regular firm letterhead in other cases. The question was whether firm lawyers could use, in certain cases, letterhead that does not include the firm name.

The committee concluded they could not. Rule 7.5 governs letterhead and bars any letterhead that is false or misleading under Rule 7.1, which treats a statement as misleading if it omits a fact necessary to keep it from being materially misleading. Because the apparent purpose of the firm-less letterhead was to avoid alerting recipients to the lawyer's firm affiliation, the omission could mislead recipients and was improper under Rules 7.1 and 7.5. The committee analogized Advisory Opinion 91-18, where a lawyer-employee's use of letterhead omitting the employer's name to appear as independent outside counsel was improper. It added that the letterhead could also mislead clients, since confidences may be shared among firm lawyers without specific consent, and a firm-less letterhead might falsely suggest confidences would not be shared. Finally, the committee noted that if the firm is properly identified, there is no requirement that every lawyer be listed; a firm may give each lawyer individual letterhead so long as the firm name is also included.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a firm lawyer use letterhead without the firm's name for certain cases?

A: No. The committee concluded that omitting the firm name may mislead recipients about the lawyer's firm affiliation, making the letterhead improper under Rules 7.1 and 7.5.

Q: Why is omitting the firm name misleading?

A: Rule 7.1 treats a statement as misleading if it omits a fact necessary to keep it from being materially misleading. The committee found the purpose was to hide the firm affiliation, which could mislead both recipients and clients (for example, about whether confidences are shared within the firm).

Q: Can a firm still give each lawyer individual letterhead?

A: Yes, if the firm name is included. The committee said there is no requirement that every lawyer be listed, so long as the firm itself is properly identified on the letterhead.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications), which correspond to like-numbered Model Rules. Rule 7.5(a) bars letterhead that is false or misleading under Rule 7.1, and Rule 7.5(d) separately bars implying a partnership that does not exist.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5: a lawyer shall not use a firm name or letterhead that violates Rule 7.1; letterhead must not imply a nonexistent partnership.
• South Carolina RPC 7.1(a) / Model Rule 7.1: a communication is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make it, considered as a whole, not materially misleading.

Other opinions cited:

• SC Bar Advisory Opinion 91-18 (lawyer-employee letterhead omitting employer's name improper).

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 03-04: The Trade Name 'Capitol Counsel'
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 03-10: Practice-Area Trade Names
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 04-05: Naming the Firm in Co-Counsel Ads

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-93-07/

Original opinion text

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

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 93-07

ABC law firm maintains a general civil practice with its main office in one city and a branch office in another city. Several of the lawyers in the firm represent lenders and creditors in mortgage foreclosure and collection actions. Several other lawyers in the firm have primarily a defense practice. The regular firm letterhead lists all lawyers in the firm. The lawyers practicing in the foreclosure and collection areas would like to use a separate letterhead in those cases, which would indicate only the lawyer's name, address, telephone, and fax numbers, without including the firm's name or the names of other lawyers in the firm. The lawyers would continue to practice from the firm's offices and would use the regular firm letterhead in other cases.

Question:
Is it permissible for lawyers practicing in a firm to use, in certain cases, separate letterhead that does not include the name of the law firm?

Summary:
Letterhead that omits the name of the law firm may mislead recipients of correspondence as to the lawyer's affiliation with a firm and thus violates Rules 7.1 and 7.5.

Opinion:
Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 governs the permissible content of law firm letterheads. Rule 7.5(a) generally prohibits a lawyer from using any letterhead that contains a false or misleading communication in violation of Rule 7.1. Rule 7.5(d) specifically prohibits any letterhead that implies the existence of a partnership when none exists, the opposite of the inquiry presented here. The question, then, is whether letterhead which fails to acknowledge the existence of a firm would be false and misleading so as to be barred under Rule 7.1.

Rule 7.1(a) provides that a statement is false and misleading if it "omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading." The apparent purpose of creating a separate letterhead without the firm's name is to avoid alerting the recipient to the lawyer's affiliation with a law firm. We find that the omission, therefore, may mislead the recipient of the letter in a way prohibited under Rule 7.1 and would be improper under Rule 7.5.

In Advisory Opinion 91-18, we considered a situation in which an employee of a corporation, who also was a lawyer, wanted to represent the employer in collection work using a letterhead that would have the lawyer's name, but not the name of the employer. The purpose of the letterhead was to give the impression that the lawyer was independent outside counsel. The Committee concluded then that such a letterhead would be improper. We believe that the same reasoning applies in this inquiry.

In addition to misleading non-clients as to the lawyer's affiliation with a law firm, the letterhead proposed could mislead clients as well. For example, confidential client information may be shared among lawyers within the same firm without specific client consent. By using a letterhead without any firm designation, the lawyer may give the false impression to the client that confidences will not be shared with any other person.

Finally, we note that, if the law firm is identified properly on the letterhead, there is no requirement that every lawyer in the firm also be listed on the letterhead. A law firm may provide each lawyer with separate letterhead that includes only the name of that lawyer, as long as the name of the law firm also is included.