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 ContentComments
Got something to say?