Rutgers School of Law, OAL case opin-10

129 N.J.L.J. 270
September 26, 1991

COMMITTEE ON ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court

OPINION 10

Law Firm Name: Additional
Identifying Language

    This Opinion is occasioned by the Committee's recent consideration of separate grievances concerning, among other things, the law firm names employed by two sole practitioners. Although one matter resulted in a recommendation of private discipline after formal hearing, and the other was resolved informally, the Committee determined that the one issue common to both warranted a formal advisory opinion.
    The names the Committee found objectionable were:
        (1) Doe and Company

        (2) Accidental Injury Legal Practice Robert Roe, P.A.

    Prior to the amendments adopted June 29, 1990, and effective September 4, 1990, RPC 7.5(a) provided that
        A lawyer shall not use a law firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates RPC 7.1. Except for nonprofit legal aid or public interest law firms, the name under which a lawyer or law firm practices shall contain only the full or last names of one or more lawyers in the firm or office or the names of a person or persons who have ceased to be associated with the firm through death or retirement.

The then seemingly insurmountable obstacle to the use of additional identifying language was that part of the rule which limited firm names to only the full or last names of those lawyers actively practicing with the firm and/or those lawyers who had been active but retired or died. In its employment of the words "shall contain only," instead of a more permissive "shall include," the rule clearly prohibited a for profit law firm name from containing any words or phrases other than proper names. CAA Opinion 2, 120 N.J.L.J. 789 (1987), petition for review granted sub nom Frank P. Friedman & Associates and Casha & Associates v. Committee on Attorney Advertising, 114 N.J. 315 (1988).
    The question of whether the name under which a lawyer or law firm practices may include additional identifying language was ultimately referred to the Ad Hoc Supreme Court Committee on Law Firm Names. In its Report, 125 N.J.L.J. 316 (1990), the Ad Hoc Committee concluded that additional identifying language such as "& Associates," "A & Sons," "B & Niece" or "C Brothers" was not inherently misleading and should be permitted "so long as the individuals to whom the identifying language refers are, in fact, lawyers actively practicing with the firm." Id at 320. Consequently, it recommended that RPC 7.5 be revised in two respects.
    The Ad Hoc Committee's first recommendation was that the second sentence of RPC 7.5(a) be amended to delete the restrictive "shall contain only" and replace it with the more permissive "shall include the full or last names...." The second recommendation was that the following provision be added to RPC 7.5 as a new paragraph:

A law firm name may include additional identifying language such as "& Associates" only when such language is accurate and descriptive of the firm.

These recommendations were adopted by the Supreme Court on June 29, 1990, and became effective September 4, 1990.
    A careful reading of the Report of the Ad Hoc Supreme Court Committee on Law Firm Names, supra, 125 N.J.L.J. 316, suggests that the Ad Hoc Committee's focus was on identifying language that refers to lawyers practicing with the firm. Consequently, we are convinced that the drafters' intent was that RPC 7.5(e) enable firms to use additional language identifying the attorneys in, and not describing the nature of the practice of, the firm.
    We now direct our attention to the law firm names in question, "Doe and Company" and "Accidental Injury Legal Practice [of] Robert Roe, P.A." As to the first, we note that the word "company" has no known meaning or commonly understood definition insofar as it relates to the practice of law. In common parlance, partners and associates in law firms are not generally referred to as owners or employees of companies. Consequently, we conclude that the term "company" does not identify the attorneys in a firm and its use in a law firm name would, therefore, be violative of RPC 7.5(e). Since the term is also misleading as to the nature of the office and the status of those practicing therein, its use in a law firm would also be violative of RPC 7.5(a) and RPC 7.1(a)(1).
    The second name, "Accidental Injury Legal Practice [of] Robert Roe, P.A.," poses a slightly different problem. Respondent Roe stated that his practice was limited to plaintiff's personal injury cases and that he did not accept or handle any other types of matters. Therefore, he argued, his law firm name was neither false nor misleading and was primarily informational in that it identified the specific nature of his practice. Nevertheless, we remain convinced that RPC 7.5(e) contemplates the use of additional language identifying the attorneys in, and not describing the nature of the practice of, the firm. Consequently, the use in a law firm name of language conveying any information other than the identity of the attorneys in the firm would constitute a violation of the rule.

* * *

This archive is a service of Rutgers University School of Law - Camden