Keep imaginary associates off your letterhead

November 5, 2008

If you’re a solo practitioner with only a computer, a Blackberry and maybe your dog for company, using “& Associates” in the name of your firm may be misleading.

That’s according to the Connecticut Law Tribune by way of the ABA Journal. The Tribune writes:

    Consider the case of Hartford attorney Joseph Moniz, who was the subject of a grievance complaint earlier this year involving his alleged failure to refund the balance of a retainer. While looking into that issue, the Statewide Grievance Committee also found, according to its report on the case, that Moniz “used the firm name of Moniz & Associates when there were never any other attorneys employed by the firm.”
    So are grievance officials beating a path to small firms to make sure they, in fact, have more than one lawyer? Not really. Michael P. Bowler, bar counsel for the Judicial Branch, said he doesn’t have the time or resources for such an effort.
    But that doesn’t mean he’s going to turn a blind eye. “We’re taking a stricter look at advertising,” said Bowler, following the July 2007 implementation of rules governing what lawyers can and cannot say about their practices.

I was curious what Maryland says about the “& Associates” question, so I called Skip Townsend, who heads the MSBA’s ethics committee. He directed me to the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.5(d), which says, “Lawyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact.”

Townsend also faxed me an ethics opinion the committee issued in 1999. The lawyer who asked for the opinion wanted to know, among other things, if he could use “& Associates” on his letterhead when the other lawyer who worked with him was more of counsel than associate. He also shared office space, a secretary and sometimes work with eight additional lawyers, but none were actually employed by him.

The opinion goes on for three pages and change, so if this might affect you, you should read the whole thing. But the key quote is this: “The Committee is concerned that given the actual relationship of such ‘associates’ to your firm described in your inquiry, your use of the phrase ‘& Associates’ may, in fact, be materially misleading.”

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Sphere: Related Content

Comments

Got something to say?





  • Law

  • Business

  • Archives

  • Visit Eye on Annapolis

    Check out our blog on the legislative session, Eye on Annapolis.
  • Categories

Business

The business staff of The Daily Record newspaper will contribute to this section. We'll write about topics ranging from the workplace to energy to the environment, but we'll strive to keep it as local as possible.

Eye on Annapolis

Visit our sister blog, Eye on Annapolis, produced by Reporter Andy Rosen. Or, follow Andy on Twitter: TDRAndy.

RSS Business posts

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • val: i also live in Maryland and have found out that Ann Arundel Community College has a court reporting curiculum. I...
  • Jackie Sauter, Web Editor: Update: Pottery Barn also offers a myriad of options between “unsubscribe” and...
  • Erica: Good decision, now maybe I can help my son. I have been fighting with BCPSS for years over this issue. They...
  • gary: When lightning strikes a vehicle or plane, the charge travels along the exterior. It is important that there...
  • chasneka: There are so many good things going on in the greater Belvedere Square corridor. The Senator has been the...

On Commenting

We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.

Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.