Can a sole practitioner's employed associate use the firm letterhead, or must the associate have separate stationery?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry asked, under RPC 7.5(d), whether an associate attorney employed by a sole practitioner must have separate stationery. The committee noted it was continuing to consider the issue for the purpose of proposing a formal opinion to the Board of Governors.
In the meantime, the committee advised that the recent amendment to RPC 7.5 did not intend to prohibit sole practitioners from hiring associates and letting them use the law firm letterhead. Rather, the amendment's purpose is to prohibit lawyers who are not partners or associates from misleading the public.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule it discusses, RPC 7.5(d) (firm names and letterhead), corresponds to Model Rule 7.5 and has since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Must a sole practitioner's associate have separate stationery, or can the associate use the firm letterhead?
A: Per the opinion, the associate can use the firm letterhead. The committee advised that the amendment to RPC 7.5 was not intended to prohibit a sole practitioner from hiring associates and letting them use the law firm letterhead.
Q: What conduct was the RPC 7.5 amendment aimed at?
A: The committee said the amendment's purpose is to prohibit lawyers who are not partners or associates from misleading the public.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Washington RPC 7.5(d) (firm names and letterhead), corresponding to Model Rule 7.5. The committee read the recent amendment by its purpose: it targets lawyers who are not partners or associates holding themselves out in a way that misleads the public, and it was not intended to bar a sole practitioner from letting an employed associate use the firm letterhead. The committee noted the issue was still under consideration for a possible formal opinion to the Board of Governors.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 7.5(d) (firm names and letterhead), corresponding to Model Rule 7.5.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1005: including a non-partner associate in the firm name
- WSBA Ethics Op. 919: misleading firm name and an implied-specialist letterhead
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1065: titles a non-admitted law graduate may use on letterhead and cards
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=304
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1224
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 7.5(d)
Subject: Firm name; letterhead; sole practitioner employing associate
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning compliance with RPC 7.5(d), specifically whether an associate attorney employed by you as a sole practitioner must have separate stationery. Although the Committee is continuing to consider this issue for the purpose of proposing a formal opinion to the Board of Governors, I have been instructed to advise you that in the Committee's opinion the recent amendment to RPC 7.5 did not intend to prohibit sole practitioners from hiring associates and letting them use the law firm letterhead, but rather its purpose is to prohibit lawyers who are not partners or associates from misleading the public.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1988 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.