Ethics Hotline & Opinions

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2006-19

MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2006-19

RE: PROPRIETY OF USING NAME “INJURED WORKER LAW FIRM” FOR LAW PRACTICE


You have requested an opinion of the Maryland State Bar Association Committee on Ethics as to the propriety of using the name INJURED WORKER LAW FIRM for your practice.

Rule 7.5 addresses the use of firm names and letterheads. Rule 7.5(a) states:

“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 private or charitable legal services organization and is not otherwise in violation of rule 7.1.

We previously responded to similar requests in Ethics Docket 2004-09 and in Ethics Docket 2004-10. In each of those matters we concluded that the proposed trade name might well violate both Rules 7.1 and 7.5. We refer you to those opinions for an explanation of our conclusions. Your proposed trade name does not appear to violate Rule 7.5 as long as you comply with Rule 7.1. However, we have not done a search of government agency names or names of private or charitable legal service organizations to determine if your proposed name might imply a connection and therefore violate the rule. We leave that search to you.

Attached to your inquiry was a design for a sign that contains your proposed trade name and the phrase “FRIEND OF THE INJURED WORKER.” The phrase is a communication about a lawyer’s services and must be examined in light of Rule 7.1. Rule 7.1 states:

“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer of the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it:

(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;

(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(c) compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.

While the phrase does not appear to be false or misleading under Rule 7.1, the Committee cannot opine that the phrase complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct.


DISCLAIMER: Opinions of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) Ethics Committee are an uncompensated service of the MSBA. This Committee’s opinions are not binding on the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, MSBA or this Committee. The reader is advised that subsequent judicial opinions, revisions to the rules of professional conduct, and future opinions of this Committee may render the Opinions stated herein outdated. As such, the Committee’s opinions are advisory only and neither the Committee nor the MSBA assumes any liability whatsoever with respect thereto. Accordingly, reliance upon the opinions of this Committee is solely at the risk of the user.