Opinion 2113

The inquiry concerned whether a Founding Member of a law firm could continue to be designated on the letterhead of the firm if he was no longer in the active practice of
law and does not meet the criteria for “Of Counsel” designation.

The Founding Member of the firm, a father of one of the present firm members, achieved honorary status with the Washington State Bar by having obtained 50-years member status. According to the inquiry, the Founding Member is 80 years old, and is “no longer in the active practice of law”, but the Firm calls on him from time-to-time to “lend “ his thoughts on matters involving clients. The inquiry seeks guidance on how to properly acknowledge the Founding Member on the firm’s letterhead. The firm presently designates the individual as “Honorary Member” on its letterhead.

In rendering this opinion, it is assumed that the individual is no longer in the active practice of law and is retired.

RPC 7.5(a) provides:

“A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead, or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1 or Rule 7.4.”

RPC 7.5(d) further provides as follows:

“Lawyers may state or imply that they are in practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact.”

RPC 7.1 states:

“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it:

(a) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”

The Committee is of the opinion that the designation “Honorary Member”, without further clarification, would violate RPC 7.1 and 7.5, in that it implies that the Honorary Member lawyer and the other lawyers are in a partnership, when in fact they are not. As the former firm member is no longer actively practicing law, this fact needs to be clearly stated so as to avoid any false or misleading communications and/or implying an association set forth in 7.5(d).

Likewise, the designation of “Honorary Member” without further clarification as to the retired status of the lawyer, is in the Committee’s opinion a violation of RPC 7.1 and 7.5 as it implies that the member is still practicing law.

Informal Opinion #1868 provides that an inactive lawyer may not use “Of Counsel” designation on a firm’s letterhead.

Informal Opinion #1994 provides that designating an attorney as “Retired” when he is practicing law would violate RPC 7.1 and 7.5.

Since the “Honorary Member” is no longer in the “active practice of law”, any designation on the letterhead must make this clear. The designation of “Honorary Member” without noting his retired status, misleads the public. However, if the firm merely wishes to acknowledge the retired lawyer’s contribution to the firm, Informal Ethics Opinion # 1994 allows the designation “retired”, followed by the year of retirement, to be placed after the retired lawyer’s name. The Committee suggests that using the term “Retired”, followed by the year of retirement, would eliminate any potential for misleading the public, by clearly stating the attorney is no longer practicing, as well as clearly defining the relationship between the Founding Member and the present Firm.

This opinion is limited to responding to the inquiry as to how to recognize and designate the founding member on the firm`s letterhead. The requesting party`s attention is directed to RPC 5.5(e) regarding whether the founding member is engaged in the practice of law by lending his thoughts to the firm on client matters, and also Formal Ethics Opinion 178 dealing with the designation of an attorney as "Of Counsel”.