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.
***
