OPINION 2012-2 Issued June 8, 2012. Identification of Nonlawyers on Law Firm Letterhead, Websites, and Business Cards



Similar documents
OPINION Issued August 7, Direct In-person Solicitation of Prospective Clients at Seminars

Based on these facts, you have raised the following questions:

OPINION Issued August 8, Imputation of Conflicts in a Part-Time County Prosecutor s Law Firm

OPINION Issued October 7, Multijurisdictional Practice and Debt Settlement Legal Services

OPINION Issued April 5, Direct Contact with Prospective Clients: Text Messages

^^^^ A S S O C I AT I ON

OPINION Issued June 3, Lawyer Participation in Referral Services

OSBA Informal Advisory Opinion June 20, Re: Request for Informal Advisory Opinion

Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-408 Issued: July 1999

ISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion

DELAWARE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS. Opinion February 29, 2008

127 USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE COMPLAINT

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-429 Date: June 17, 2008

Specifically, the Bar has been asked the following questions:

OHIO STATE BAR O ASSOCIATION.

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW (FOURTH & THIRD DEGREE) (N.J.S.A. 2C:21-22)

Hot Ethics Issues for Product Liability Defense Attorneys

Grievances Against Lawyers & Judges

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No

Advisory on the Law of Lawyering in New Hampshire

Comparison of Newly Adopted Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct with ABA Model Rules RHODE ISLAND

November 29, 2000 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

FORMAL OPINION NO Internet Advertising: Payment of Referral Fees

NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS NO Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT O:F THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO BOARD OF PROFE

COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL RULE FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION WITH STATE VERSIONS AND AMENDMENTS SINCE AUGUST 2002

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE ON ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

LAWYERS AS CONTRACTORS HOW MUCH CAN YOU CHARGE FOR THAT?

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No

Legal Ethics and Advertising in the Social Media Era

Interpretive Comments. Part 7: Information About Legal Services

Overcoming Ethical Challenges for Multi-Firm Lawyers and Their Firms: Fiduciary Duty, Conflict, Fee-Splitting and More

NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS ESI & ETHICS OCTOBER 6, 2015 RONALD J. HEDGES

NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS NO

Louisiana State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct Committee

OPINION APPLICABILITY OF RULE 49 TO DISCOVERY SERVICES COMPANIES. Issued January 12, 2012

NEBRASKA ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION FOR LAWYERS No

FORMAL OPINION NO Unauthorized Practice of Law: Lawyer as Mediator, Trade Names, Division of Fees with Nonlawyer

COMMITTEE ON ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

FINANCIAL ADVISING BY ATTORNEYS. Prepared by Thomas E. Geyer Updated November 1, 2003

TOOLS FOR A NEW TRADE: ADVERTISING IN THE INTERNET ERA

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

The North Carolina State Bar

LAWYER TO LAWYER MENTORING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION TO MALPRACTICE AND GRIEVANCE TRAPS

Comparison of Newly Adopted Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct with ABA Model Rules RHODE ISLAND

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Managing the Perils of Lawyer Social Networking

INFORMAL OPINION WHEN CLIENT CONSENT IS NECESSARY IN LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION OF CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY DEBTOR

STATE BAR OF NEVADA STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Formal Opinion No. 7 October 15, 1987

SLIP OPINION NO OHIO-522 CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT FORMAL OPINION NO

THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS. FORMAL OPINION August 2006

SLIP OPINION NO OHIO-2340 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

Unauthorized Practice of Law. Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission

~ thej~ Cowdo/r~kMa thej~ Cowd[!/J~ ffl the

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

Advisory Opinion # A Television Commercial #Six Rule 7.1-Results Disclaimers and Dramatization

How To Use Social Media To Help Your Business

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Nienaber (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 534.] Attorneys at law Misconduct Indefinite suspension Making affirmative

Attorney Advertising, Solicitation, and Professional Notices

Analysis One Code Desc. Transaction Amount. Fiscal Period

ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Formal Opinion (Ghostwriting by Contract Lawyers and Out-of-State Lawyers)

SUMMARY OF NEW LAWYER ADVERTISING RULES EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 2013

Eighteen states currently

2012 WI 71 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph W. Weigel, Attorney at Law:

LAWYER TO LAWYER MENTORING PROGRAM WORKSHEET Q INTRODUCTION TO REPORTING LAWYER MISCONDUCT OR UNFITNESS

4 [Introduced January 12, 2011; referred to the. 10 A BILL to amend of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHAPTER 20, FLORIDA RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR-----

Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics. Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

CHAPTER 49. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT Act 72 of The People of the State of Michigan enact:

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith Sept. Term 2011, Misc. No. 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Differences between State Advertising and Solicitation Rules and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (January 1, 2011)*

PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION LEGAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE COMMITTEE

Discuss the importance of professionalism in client development.

Fee sharing did not always require client consent. And when one attorney

OPINION NO March 16, 1990

AT&T Global Network Client for Windows Product Support Matrix January 29, 2015

Advisory Opinion # A Personal Injury Print Advertisement Use of Superlatives and Monetary Verdicts

CENTERPOINT ENERGY TEXARKANA SERVICE AREA GAS SUPPLY RATE (GSR) JULY Small Commercial Service (SCS-1) GSR

Analysis of Table Depicting Eligibility Requirements For, and Restrictions on, Practice Before the Federal District Courts

Department of Economic Development

UPL Advisory Opinion (February 2010) Out of State Attorney Practicing Law in the State of Arizona

Presentation to the Bankruptcy Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association

8 4 J S 2 6. Ethical Debt Collection 10/29/2014. ACA Fall Forum November 5-7, 2014 Hyatt Regency San Francisco. For webcast viewers in all states:

Formal Opinions Opinion DUAL PRACTICE. Adopted December 14, 1996.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson, 139 Ohio St.3d 452, 2014-Ohio-2482.]

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

State Annual Report Due Dates for Business Entities page 1 of 10

Professional Responsibility and New Technology

Ethics in Judicial Elections

SYLLABUS. In the Matter of the Letter Decision of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Docket No (A-14-08) (062134)

Question 5. After the trial, Attorney sent a $500 gift certificate to Doctor, with a note thanking her for recommending that Peter call him.

RE: NJAPM Comments on In Re Decision on CAA

Certification by Specialty: A Panel Discussion

Transcription:

RICHARD A. DOVE SECRETARY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE 65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431 614.387.9370 888.664.8345 FAX: 614.387.9379 www.supremecourt.ohio.gov MICHELLE A. HALL SENIOR COUNSEL OPINION 2012-2 Issued June 8, 2012 Identification of Nonlawyers on Law Firm Letterhead, Websites, and Business Cards SYLLABUS: A law firm s letterhead and website may list the names of nonlawyer employees if the employees are clearly identified as nonlawyers through the use of job titles or other identifiers that differentiate the lawyers from the nonlawyers. Similarly, a law firm s business cards may bear the names of nonlawyer employees if the cards include job titles or other language indicating the employee is not licensed to practice law. Advisory Opinion 89-16 is withdrawn. QUESTION PRESENTED: May law firm letterhead and business cards include the names of nonlawyer employees? APPLICABLE RULES: Conduct Rules 7.1 and 7.5 of the Ohio Rules of Professional OPINION: The Board has been asked to revisit 23-year-old Advisory Opinion 89-16. In that opinion, the Board considered whether the names of nonlawyer employees may be included on law firm letterhead and business cards. Relying on two informal opinions of the American Bar Association (ABA), the Board found that nonlawyer law firm employees could be named on firm business cards if titles and language indicating the employee s nonlawyer status were also printed on the card. Ohio Sup. Ct., Bd. of Comm rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 89-16 (June 16, 1989), citing ABA Commt. on Ethics and Prof l Responsibility, Informal Op. 1185 (1971) and Informal Op. 1367 (1976). Although the question presented to the Board is limited to Opinion 89-16, which only addresses letterhead and business cards, the Board notes that law

Op. 2012-2 2 firm websites are now a primary method of communicating with clients, prospective clients, and the public. This was not the case in 1989 when the Board issued Opinion 89-16. Accordingly, the Board will expand its consideration of a law firm s letterhead employee listings to law firm websites containing such listings. The Board viewed letterhead differently from business cards in Opinion 89-16. Although another ABA informal opinion stated that law firms could list nonlawyers on firm letterhead, the Board concluded that the inclusion of nonlawyers on letterhead was prohibited in Ohio. Op. 89-16 at 2; contra ABA Commt. on Ethics and Prof l Responsibility, Informal Op. 1527 (1989). The Board determined that the ABA opinion interpreted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules), and because the Supreme Court of Ohio (Court) had not adopted the Model Rules at the time, the Board found it could not follow the ABA s approach. Op. 89-16 at 1-2. At the time of Opinion 89-16, the former Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), and in particular DR 2-102(A)(4), governed the content of law firm letterhead. As summarized by the Board in Opinion 89-16, DR 2-102(A)(4) allowed law firm letterhead to include the name of the law firm, names of members and associates, and the names and dates relating to deceased and retired partners. Id. Interpreting DR 2-102(A)(4) as an exhaustive list, the Board concluded that designating nonlawyer employees on law firm letterhead violated DR 2-102(A)(4). The Court repealed the Code in its entirety effective February 1, 2007, and adopted the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (Ohio Rules). The Ohio Rules are based in large part on the Model Rules. Law firm 1 letterhead must now comply with Prof.Cond.R. 7.5(a), which states that [a] lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates [Prof.Cond.R. 7.1]. Prof.Cond.R. 7.1, which is referenced in Prof.Cond.R. 7.5(a), contains the general provision applicable to all communications concerning a lawyer or the lawyer s services. Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 states as follows: 1 In this opinion, the Board intends law firm to have the same meaning as in Prof.Cond.R. 1.0: a lawyer or lawyers in a law partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship, or other association authorized to practice law; or lawyers employed in a private or public legal aid or public defender organization, a legal services organization, or the legal department of a corporation or other organization.

Op. 2012-2 3 A lawyer shall not make or use a false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication about the lawyer or the lawyer s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading. Reading Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 and 7.5(a) together, the current standard is that law firm letterhead and websites cannot be false or misleading, or contain a nonverifiable communication about a lawyer or the lawyer s services. The only reference to nonlawyers in these rules appears in comment [1] to Prof.Cond.R. 7.5, which states that it is misleading to use the name of a nonlawyer in a law firm name. Neither Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 nor Prof.Cond.R. 7.5(a), however, prohibit the use of nonlawyers names on law firm letterhead or website employee listings. In fact, the exhaustive list contained in former DR 2-102(A)(4) and relied upon by the Board in Opinion 89-16 does not appear in the Ohio Rules. It is now the Board s view that law firm letterhead and websites may list the names of nonlawyer employees if the use of the names is not a false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication. 2 In order for law firm letterhead and website employee listings not to be false or misleading or contain nonverifiable information, a person s nonlawyer status must be clearly delineated. See Bennett, Cohen & Whittaker, Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 569 (7th Ed. 2011). This may be accomplished through the use of titles following the names on the letterhead or website that do not cause confusion about a law firm employee s ability to practice law. Examples of such titles include paralegal, legal assistant, law clerk, or office administrator. Another technique to further designate nonlegal staff on law firm letterhead is to list the lawyers on one side of the letterhead and the nonlawyers on the other side with the appropriate titles or an explanation. On law firm websites, greater creativity is possible and nonlawyers may be depicted on separate web pages or set apart visually with graphics and appropriate 2 A number of states have issued ethics opinions indicating that law firm letterhead may list the names of nonlawyers. See State Bar of Ariz., Commt. on Rules of Prof l Conduct, Op. 90-03 (Mar. 16, 1990); Conn. Bar Assn., Commt. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 85-17 (Nov. 11, 1985); Fla. State Bar Assn., Commt. on Prof l Ethics, Op. 86-4 (Aug. 1, 1986); Haw. Sup. Ct., Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Op. 78-8-19 (July 3, 1984); Ill. St. Bar Assn., Op. 87-01 (Sept. 8, 1987); State Bar of Mich., Standing Commt. on Prof l and Judicial Ethics, Op. RI-34 (Oct. 25, 1989); Miss. State Bar, Op. No. 93 (June 7, 1984); N.J. Sup. Ct., Commt. on Atty. Advertising, Op. 16 (Jan. 24, 1994); N.C. State Bar, RPC 126 (Apr. 17, 1992); Pa. Bar Assn. Commt. on Legal Ethics and Prof l Responsibility, Op. 98-75 (Dec. 4, 1998); S.C. Bar Ethics Adv. Commt., Op. 05-19 (Oct. 21, 2005); Utah State Bar, Ethics Adv. Commt., Op. No. 131 (May 20, 1993); Va. State Bar, Op. 970 (Sept. 30, 1987); State Bar of Wis., Commt. on Prof. Ethics, Op. E-85-6 (Oct. 1985).

Op. 2012-2 4 descriptions. A further option would be to identify the firm s nonlawyers with an asterisk and an indication on the letterhead or website that the asterisk signifies employees who are not lawyers. However a law firm chooses to identify nonlawyer employees on the firm s letterhead or website, it must be done in such a way that is not a false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication under Prof.Cond.R. 7.1. Done correctly, law firm letterhead and websites that name nonlawyer employees enhance service to clients, prospective clients, and the public. As stated by the ABA, [t]he listing of support personnel, such as the law firm administrator or office manager, administrative assistants, paralegals or others, appropriately designated may furnish useful information to the public in determining whether to engage the firm and in learning the status of members of the support staff with whom they have contact. ABA Informal Opinion 89-1527 at 1. Consistent with allowing law firms to list appropriately-designated nonlawyer employees on firm letterhead and websites, the Board reiterates its position in Opinion 89-16 that firm business cards may identify nonlawyer employees. Under Prof.Cond.R. 5.3, lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure that nonlawyers they employ, retain, or associate with engage in conduct that is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. Like firm letterhead and websites, then, nonlawyer business cards must comply with Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 and 7.5(a) and cannot be false or misleading or contain nonverifiable information. It follows that the business cards of a law firm s nonlawyer employees have to include the employee s title or other explanation of their role in the firm. Such business cards shall unequivocally communicate that the person is not a lawyer. CONCLUSION: The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct allow law firms to include the names of nonlawyer employees on the firm s letterhead, website, and business cards. However, to avoid being a false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication under Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 and 7.5(a), letterhead, websites, and business cards must clearly differentiate the lawyers from the nonlawyers. The nonlawyers may be identified in a variety of ways, including through the use of job titles or other explanation of the person s role in the firm, spacing on the letterhead, visual techniques on the website, or typographical symbols with accompanying explanations. Advisory Opinion 89-16 is withdrawn.

Op. 2012-2 5 Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney s Oath of Office.