MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2005-05
Propriety of potential firm names for an intellectual property attorney
You advise that you are a licensed attorney in Maryland and the District of Columbia, and are a licensed patent attorney before the US Patent and Trademark Office. You state that you “practice as an intellectual property attorney, providing patent and other intellectual property services — such as trade secrets, licensing, copyright and trademark.” You further state that you employ patent agents and patent engineers in your practice.
You provided five potential firm names and requested the Committee review and advise you on their acceptability:
X Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
X Intellectual Property Services, P.C.
X Patent Law, P.C.
X Patent Services, P.C.
X Intellectual Property Law Offices, P.C.
X represents your last name.
In prior opinions, the Committee has generally addressed the use of firm names, including trade names, as well as “specialty” and other designations purporting to limit an attorney’s practice. See, 2004-15 (www.marylandadoption.us as a website address), 2004-10 (Consumer Legal Service, P.C.), 2004-09 (USA Law, Inc.), 2000-21, 1992-52 (The Disability Specialists/The Disability Firm), 1991-10 (last will and testament writing service) 1981-16 (Family Law Service), 1981-23, 1980-10, 1979-29, and 1978-46. Those opinions are available at www.msba.org.
Your inquiry implicates several of the Rules relating to provision of information about legal services, mainly MRPC 7.1, 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5:
MRPC 7.1(a) provides:
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading 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.
MRPC 7.2 (d) provides:
Any communication made pursuant to this Rule shall include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for its content.
MRPC 7.4 provides:
A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law, subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1. A lawyer shall not hold himself or herself out publicly as a specialist.
MRPC 7.5(a) provides:
A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. A trade name may be used by a lawyer in private practice if it does not imply a connection with a government agency or with a public or charitable legal services organization and is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1.
Pursuant to MRPC 7.5, you may use a trade name as your firm name, and because your last name is part of the trade name, MRPC 7.2 is satisfied. While MRPC 7.2 addresses advertising rather than firm names, it is implicated by the fact that your potential trade names include descriptive terms, i.e. ‘intellectual property’ and ‘patent’. See, Petition for Court’s Approval of Attorney’s Use of Trade Name, 333 Md. 488, 491 (1994)(“we also note that Petitioners’ generic trade name does not include the name of the attorney responsible for it”); Ethics Docket 2004-10 (Maryland law firms are generally required to include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for the firms’ conduct in its name”).
The trade name you ultimately select, however, must not violate MRPC 7.1, which is referenced in both MRPC 7.4 and 7.5. Pursuant to the Comment to MRPC 7.5, a “firm may be designated by the names of all or some of its members, . . . or by a trade name such as the ‘ABC Legal Clinic.'” Moreover, use of a trade name “in law practice is acceptable so long as it is not misleading.” Accordingly, should you select a trade name that includes a description of your field(s) of practice, the trade name selected must accurately inform the public as to which field(s) of law you practice.
Your inquiry specifically states that you practice in fields other than patent law, and therefore, the potential firm names implying that you are limiting your practice to patent law may be misleading and in violation of MRPC 7.1 and 7.5.
Our guidelines do not permit the Committee to approve a trade name or any advertising material. However, the potential firm names X Intellectual Property Law, P.C., X Intellectual Property Services, P.C. and X Intellectual Property Law Offices, P.C. do not appear to be misleading as they include your last name within the trade name, and do not connote that you are a specialist in the field. The Committee cautions that you may run the risk of having your trade name challenged as misleading should you decide to broaden your practice, or practice in any field other than intellectual property.
REFERENCES:
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct: 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5
Ethics Dockets 2004-10, 2004-09, 2000-21, 1992-52, 1991-10, 1981-16, 1981-23, 1980-10, 1979-29, and 1978-46