Link to original WordPerfect Document
115 N.J.L.J. 96
January 24, 1985
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
OPINION 553
Use of Business Cards by
Non-Lawyer Employee of Law
Firm - Extension of Opinion 471
In our Opinion 471, 107 N.J.L.J. 127 (1981), we stated that
there was no ethical objection to a non-lawyer assistant having
business cards showing the name, address, and telephone number of
the law firm, or attorney, for whom that person was employed and
with the designation "Office Manager". We pointed out that the
names of non-lawyer assistants could not appear on the lawyer's
letterhead and that the business card shall only be used in
connection with vendors, suppliers, and other personnel with whom
the office manager had direct contact in the administration of the
law office.
The present inquiry is directed to the limitation of the words
"Office Manager" on business cards in connection with the
employment of non-lawyer, non-legal assistants. The inquirer points
out that law firms throughout the State are using other
designations for such individuals like "Administrator, Legal
Administrator, Director of Administration, Executive Director,
Director of Operations, and Office Manager." The inquirer states
that there is even an organization known as "New Jersey Association
of Legal Administrators".
In Opinion 471, supra, we cited prior opinions, particularly,
Opinion 9, 86 N.J.L.J. 617 (1963), Opinion 296, 98 N.J.L.J. 105
(1975), and the Supplement to Opinion 296, 99 N.J.L.J. 113 (1976).
We were principally directing our findings in these cases toward
the use of business cards as improper advertising devices and
unethical solicitation of business. It was not the intention of
this Committee in Opinion 471 to indicate that the designation
"Office Manager" was the only designation permitted on the business
card of the attorney or the law firm. The inquiry in that case was
directed to the use of that particular title. We see no objection
to the use of similar titles so long as they are not misleading and
accurately designate the duties which the non-lawyer assistant
performs for the lawyer or the law firm. Even under the former DR
2-102(A), the use of a professional card was prohibited only if it
included a statement or claim that was false, fraudulent,
misleading, or deceptive. DR 2-102 is now encompassed within RPC
7.2 - Advertising.
RPC 7.2 authorizes advertising through "public media such as
telephone directory, legal directory, newspaper or other
periodicals, radio or television, or direct mail written
communication." Such advertising must be presented in a dignified
manner.
With the advent of Court opinions and rules now permitting
advertising, Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977),
some of what we have said in the cited prior opinions is no longer
applicable. The lawyer or law firm employing non-lawyer assistants
is now held to strict responsibility for the actions of such
assistants under RPC 5.3 In subsection (b) of that Rule, the
non-lawyer's conduct must be compatible with professional
obligations of the lawyer.
Since the lawyer or law firm employing the non-lawyer
assistant is responsible for the actions of that person, and may be
responsible for damages if any one is misled by the conduct of the
non-lawyer assistant (see DiCosala v. Kay, 91 N.J. 159 (1984)), and
since the use of such card can no longer be considered improper as
advertising or unethical solicitation, we see no reason to prohibit
the use on the business card of the actual title which the law firm
gives to its non-lawyer assistants.
We affirm our holding in Opinion 471 that the use of such
business cards shall be only in connection with the administrative
work in the law offices of the non-lawyer assistant.
* * *
This archive is a service of
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden