Can two lawyers who each keep their own clients use a joint firm name like 'Smith and Jones' if they are not actually partners?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it violated the Canons to use a firm name indicating a partnership, such as "Smith and Jones," when a true partnership did not exist and each lawyer had his own clients.

The Committee was of the opinion that such a practice violates Texas Canon 30 and American Bar Canon 33, as interpreted in Opinions 105, 115, and 126 released by the American Bar Committee. The vote was 6-3.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1953, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis; firm names and letterhead are now addressed by ABA Model Rule 7.5 and the bar on misleading communications by Model Rule 7.1. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 two lawyers share a "Smith and Jones" name if they keep separate clients?

A: No. The Committee found that holding out as partners when no true partnership exists violates Texas Canon 30 and ABA Canon 33 (6-3).

Q: What authority did the Committee rely on?

A: Texas Canon 30 and American Bar Canon 33, as interpreted in ABA Opinions 105, 115, and 126.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 30 and American Bar Canon 33 (partnership names), applied to a firm name suggesting a partnership that does not exist. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), as the modern analog
• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 30 (partnerships)
• ABA Canon 33 (partnerships)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee Opinions 105, 115, and 126: interpreting ABA Canon 33

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 79: Firm Name on Abstract-Company Covers
• TX Ethics Op. 80: Listing in a Rural-Suburban Directory
• TX Ethics Op. 81: Stamping an Examined Title Abstract

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-67/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_67.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it a violation of the Canons of Ethics to use a firm name indicating a partnership such as "Smith and Jones," when a true partnership does not exist but each lawyer has his own clients?

March 1953
18 Baylor L. Rev. 225 (1966)

PARTNERSHIPS
Attorneys may not hold themselves out as partners when, in fact, they are not.

Canon 30. A.B.A. Canon 33.

The committee is of the opinion that such a practice is a violation of Texas Canon 30, and of American Bar Canon 33, as interpreted in Opinions 105, 115, and 126 released by the American Bar Committee. (6-3)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 67 (1953)