Can an out-of-state lawyer form a Washington partnership, and must the firm letterhead show that the lawyer is not admitted in Washington?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who worked from a San Diego office had opened a Seattle partnership with a Washington lawyer and handled cases from California. The committee was of the opinion that the partnership with the Washington lawyer would not necessarily violate anything in the Rules of Professional Conduct, but said it was not clear from the facts whether the lawyer would be practicing law in Washington. The committee added that what constitutes the practice of law is a legal question on which the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee may not render an opinion.

The committee did note that the letterhead as currently used would violate RPC 7.5(d), because it did not indicate the jurisdictional limitation that prevented the lawyer from practicing law in Washington.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 an out-of-state lawyer form a partnership with a Washington lawyer?

A: The committee said the partnership would not necessarily violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, though it was not clear on the facts whether the out-of-state lawyer would be practicing law in Washington.

Q: Did the committee decide whether the lawyer was practicing law in Washington?

A: No. It said what constitutes the practice of law is a legal question on which the committee may not render an opinion.

Q: What was wrong with the firm letterhead?

A: The committee said the letterhead violated RPC 7.5(d) because it did not show the jurisdictional limitation preventing the out-of-state lawyer from practicing law in Washington.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 7.5(d) (corresponding to ABA Model Rule 7.5), which addresses firm names and letterhead and requires identification of jurisdictional limitations on partners not licensed to practice in all listed jurisdictions. The committee declined to reach the multijurisdictional-practice question because whether the lawyer's activities amounted to practicing law in Washington was a legal question outside the committee's charge.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads; jurisdictional limitations); Washington RPC 7.5(d)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1519: Advertising an Out-of-State Specialty
• WA Ethics Op. 1508: Prepaid Legal Services Plan Advertising

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=596

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1515
Year Issued: 1993
RPC(s): RPC 7.5
Subject: Partnership with out-of-state lawyer; letterhead fails to indicate jurisdictional limitation

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the partnership you have opened in Seattle with a Washington lawyer in which you work on cases from your San Diego office. The Committee was of the opinion that your partnership with the Washington lawyer would not necessarily violate anything in the Rules of Professional Conduct, but, based on the facts presented, it is not clear whether you would be practicing law in Washington. In any case, what constitutes the practice of law is a legal question on which the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee may not render an opinion.

The Committee did note, however, that your letterhead as currently used would violate RPC 7.5(d) because it does not indicate the jurisdictional limitation which prevents you from practicing law in Washington.