Can a law firm keep a named partner's name (with a 'retired in 2002' note) after he leaves to practice in another state?

Plain-English summary

A named partner in a Washington law firm intended to retire from active practice in Washington, relocate to California, obtain a California license, and practice part-time there. The Washington firm wanted to keep his name and indicate on its letterhead that he "retired in 2002." The committee concluded that as soon as a named-partner attorney ceases to practice with the Washington firm, begins practice in another jurisdiction, and is no longer associated with the firm, the firm may no longer identify him within the firm name without violating RPC 7.1 and 7.5.

The committee explained that RPC 7.1 prohibits a false or misleading communication about a lawyer's services. Citing Formal Opinion 178 (which bars fictitious composite names where no genuine partnership existed), the committee said that opinion does not prohibit using the relocating partner's name because a genuine partnership clearly existed, and that if he were in fact retiring, a "retired in 2002" notation would alleviate any misrepresentation about the number of partners, the firm's services, or the availability of his services.

But because the relocating attorney intended to continue practicing law in California, the committee said the firm's representation that he "retired in 2002" is false or misleading: it omits a fact necessary to keep the statement, as a whole, from being materially misleading. As soon as he is actively practicing in California, even part-time, his legal services remain available to the public, and there is potential for misuse where the Washington firm continues to benefit from his name and reputation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Washington's rules on firm names and lawyer communications were later amended. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

In practice

Under the Washington rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee treated keeping a named partner's name in the firm name as misleading once he leaves the firm to practice elsewhere. The opinion distinguishes a genuinely retiring partner (whose name may be retained, with a "retired" notation curing any misimpression) from one who continues to practice in another state: for the latter, a "retired" label is false or misleading because it omits that his services remain available to the public.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm keep a departed partner's name in the firm name?

A: The committee concluded that once the named partner ceases to practice with the firm, begins practice in another jurisdiction, and is no longer associated with the firm, the firm may no longer use his name in the firm name without violating RPC 7.1 and 7.5.

Q: Does adding "retired in 2002" to the letterhead fix the problem?

A: The committee said a "retired" notation would cure any misrepresentation only if the partner were actually retiring; because he intends to continue practicing law in California, the "retired" label is false or misleading.

Q: Why is the "retired" statement misleading if he really is leaving Washington?

A: The committee said the statement omits a fact necessary to keep it from being materially misleading: once he practices in California, even part-time, his legal services remain available to the public, and the firm could misuse his name and reputation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services; corresponding to Model Rule 7.1) and RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads; corresponding to Model Rule 7.5), drawing on the bar's Formal Opinion 178 regarding fictitious or misleading firm names. The analysis turns on whether the firm-name representation omits a fact necessary to keep it from being materially misleading. The opinion reflects Washington's pre-2006 rule numbering.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services)
• Model Rule 7.5 / Washington RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 178: a lawyer should not use a fictitious composite firm name where no genuine partnership existed; doing so is a misrepresentation.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1053: Departed Lawyer on Letterhead as "Retired" or "Of Counsel"
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1007: Letterhead and Firm Name After Withdrawing From a Partnership
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1980: Middle Name Instead of Last Name in a Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1240

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1994
Year Issued: 2002
RPC(s): RPC 7.1, 7.5
Subject: firm name, retired or relocated partner

One of the named partners in a Washington law firm is intending on retiring from active practice in the state of Washington and relocating to California. The retiring attorney intends to obtain a California license and practice part-time in that jurisdiction. The Washington law firm desires to continue identifying itself with his name and is willing to indicate on their letterhead that he “retired in 2002”.

The committee opined that as soon as a named partner attorney ceases to practice with a Washington law firm and begins practice in another jurisdiction and the attorney is no longer associated with the Washington law firm then the law firm may no longer identify him within the firm name without violating RPC 7.1 and 7.5.

RPC 7.1 prohibits an attorney from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer’s services. As stated in the facts provided in the inquiry, the relocating attorney was a former partner of the firm who is “retiring” from active practice in Washington. Formal Opinion 178 states:

[A] lawyer should not use a fictitious composite such as “Jones & Brown” where Jones is deceased and either (a) there never existed prior to Jones’ death a genuine partnership between Jones and Brown or (b) Brown’s assumption of Jones’ name is based on his occupancy of the office space occupied by Jones prior to his death. This practice is a misrepresentation and should not continue.

In this instance, Formal Opinion 178 does not prohibit the use of the relocating partner’s name in association with the firm name since a genuine partnership clearly existed. If the relocating partner was in fact retiring, a notation on the firm’s letterhead indicating he “retired in 2002” would alleviate a misrepresentation regarding the number of partners in the firm, the firm’s services, or the availability of the relocating partner’ services.

However, as presented by the inquiry, the relocating attorney intends to continue practicing law in California. Under these facts, the representation by the Washington firm that the attorney “retired in 2002” is false or misleading because it omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. As soon as the relocating attorney is actively practicing law in California, even part-time, his legal services continue to be available to the public. Furthermore, the potential for misuse exists where the Washington firm continues to benefit from the relocating attorney’s name and reputation.