Link to original WordPerfect Document
98 N.J.L.J. 513
June 12, 1975
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
OPINION 307
Announcements
Foreign Attorney in Firm's Name
Management Representation Specialty
The announcement which forms the basis of this opinion states:
Smith announces the removal of his,
offices to New City, New Jersey
Where he and Jones of the New York Bar
have formed a partnership
X and Y shall be associated with the firm
of Smith and Jones
The firm, in addition to specializing in labor
matters representing management, will be
engaged in the general practice of law.
Does the announcement violate the Disciplinary Rules with
respect to (a) the partnership and (b) "advertising" a
specialization? Regarding the partnership, Disciplinary Rule
2-102(C), adopted in July, 1971 by the New Jersey Supreme Court,
provides:
A partnership shall not be formed or continued
between or among lawyers licensed in different
jurisdictions unless all enumerations, of the
members, and associates of the firm on its
letterhead and other permissible listings make
clear the jurisdiction limitations on these
member and associates of the firm not licensed
to practice in all listed jurisdictions;
provided, however, a firm name may not be used
in New Jersey unless all those names are or
were members of the bar in New Jersey.
And, as detailed in Opinion 223, 94 N.J.L.J. 1197 (1971), the Code
of Professional Responsibility adopted by the ABA Committee on
Evaluation of Ethical Standards differs from the rule adopted by
the New Jersey Supreme Court in that it provides "the same firm
name may be used in each jurisdiction." The New Jersey Supreme
Court's change in the rule must be regarded as of significance.
In 1967 under the Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 33, ABA
Formal Opinion 318 concluded: "It would be improper to maintain an
office in a state under a partnership name which includes the names
of partners not licensed to practice in that state, unless such
practice is condoned by local custom and usage in the state where
the office is to be maintained."
The practice of using a partnership name which includes the
names of partners not locally admitted has never been condoned in
New Jersey even prior to the express prohibition adopted by the New
Jersey Supreme Court. Opinion 152, 92 N.J.L.J. 333 (1969),
reasoned:
A New Jersey firm is presumed,
for all purposes, to consist of
lawyers who have been admitted to
practice in the State of New Jersey.
No firm name may be chosen which
would tend to induce a belief that
all members of the firm were
admitted to practice in the State of
New Jersey, if such is not the case.
We there concluded "that the firm name in New Jersey should not
contain the foreign attorney's name."
Although the announcement of the partnership in this instance
does not specifically set forth the firm name, the notice indicates
"X and Y shall be associated with the firm of Smith and Jones"
(emphasis added). This suggests that the firm will be known by the
name of Smith and Jones, which is improper under DR 2-102(C).
In addition to the problem of the firm name with respect to an
interstate partnership, the announcement presents the question of
"advertising" practice in a specialized area. DR 2-106(A)(3)
states:
A lawyer available to act as a consultant to
or as an associate of other lawyers in a
particular branch of law or legal service may
distribute to other lawyers and publish in
legal journals a dignified announcement of
such availability, but the announcement shall
not contain a representation of special
competence or experience. The announcement
shall not be distributed to lawyers more
frequently than once in a calendar year, but
it may be published periodically in legal
journals. (Emphasis added)
In Opinion 283, 97 N.J.L.J. 362 (1974), this Committee held
that, “When an attorney announces his availability to other lawyers
he hopes that his reputation has, already been noted by some
members of the profession, and that requests for his consultation
will be forthcoming. But, the use of language stating that he is
available 'to render specialized legal pertaining to environmental,
housing, land use planning and control, renewal, and zoning matters
and cases' (emphasis added), can only be calculated as an attempt
not to announce his availability but to promote his services to
lawyers who are not yet familiar with his background and expertise.
It is a prohibited form of advertising. This is the crux of the
problem."
The A.B.A. Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 46 prior to
its revision in 1956 was identical to the Code provision currently
in effect in New Jersey. This Committee in Opinion 49, 87 N.J.L.J.
465 (1964), dealt with an announcement by attorneys "experienced in
Negligence, Workmen's Compensation and Real Property." The opinion
held that the services listed were too broad a range to come within
the purview of "specialized legal services" as contemplated in
Canon 46. The prime motivation was, considered to be advertising
rather than the availability of special services.
The notice questioned in New Jersey Advisory Committee on
Professional Ethics, Opinion 107, 90 N.J.L.J. 245 (1967), was
related to "tax lien foreclosures" as specialized legal service.
Again, Canon 46 was strictly construed. The test used was:
Any class of work which the average
lawyer is equipped and willing to handle
cannot be said to be a specialty despite the
fact that a lawyer may resurrect himself to
such a class of work and acquire an unusual
degree of proficiency.
While under the revised Canon 46, an announcement indicating
particularized services, in the field of labor law was considered
acceptable; under the Code DR 2-102(A)(2) and 2-105, by which New
Jersey is bound, it is not. A.B.A. Comm. on Professional Ethics,
Informal Opinion 876 (1965), quotes from Opinion 165 (1955) of the
Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the State Bar of
Michigan: "It is not even open to question that practice in the
field of labor law is not a specialization within the meaning of
Canon 46 as to entitle such claimed specialization to special
notice."
Even if the statement of such specialty were allowed, this
announcement would be improper in these respects. It is set forth
as a flat statement of expertise not as an offer of particularized
services. Secondly, the phrase "representing management" completely
negates the notion of availability and colors the announcement with
the blush of solicitation.
* * *
This archive is a service of
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden