WSBA 1992

Can two lawyers who are not partners or shareholders practice under a joint firm name connecting their last names with 'and'?

Short answer: The committee concluded that two lawyers who are neither partners nor shareholders cannot use a joint firm name connecting their last names with 'and'; doing so violates RPC 7.5(b).

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about the practice of two lawyers who are neither partners nor shareholders in a professional corporation, but who use a firm name connecting their last names with "and." The committee was of the opinion that the use of such a firm name under these facts would violate RPC 7.5(b).

The committee also directed that a copy of Formal Opinion 178 be sent to the inquiring lawyer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 two lawyers who are not partners use a joint "Smith and Jones" style firm name?

A: The committee concluded that, on these facts, lawyers who are neither partners nor shareholders may not use such a joint firm name, because it violates RPC 7.5(b).

Q: What does RPC 7.5(b) target here?

A: The committee treated the joint "and" name as implying a partnership or shared firm that did not exist between the two lawyers.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 7.5(b) (firm names and letterheads), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 7.5, which bars a firm name that falsely implies a relationship among lawyers. The committee treated a joint "and" name between two lawyers who were neither partners nor shareholders as conveying a partnership or shared-firm relationship that did not exist, and pointed the inquirer to WSBA Formal Opinion 178.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads); Washington RPC 7.5(b)

Other opinions cited:

WSBA Formal Opinion 178.

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=553

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1473
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 7.5(b); Formal Opinion 178
Subject: Firm name with lawyers who are not partners or shareholders

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the practice of two lawyers who are neither partners nor shareholders in a professional corporation under a firm name using their last names connected with "and". The Committee was of the opinion that the use of such a firm name under these facts would be a violation of RPC 7.5 (b). The Committee also directed me to send you a copy of Formal Opinion 178.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1992 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.