MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2007-08
Propriety/requirement that business cards or other attorney material list the jurisdiction where the attorney is admitted to practice law
Your inquiry dated August 24, 2006, has been considered by the Committee on Ethics of the Maryland State Bar Association, and I have been assigned to respond to you on behalf of the Committee.
You have raised the question of whether it is improper under The Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“the Rules”) to list the jurisdictions where an attorney is admitted to practice on a business card.
We have addressed similar issues in previous Committee opinions. See, Ethics Opinions 90-28, 94-13 and 99-20. These opinions may be obtained from the Maryland State Bar Association website at www.msba.org.
The Rules state that an attorney cannot disseminate false or misleading information. See, Rule 7.1. Therefore, information on an attorney’s business card should not cause confusion about where the attorney is licensed to practice.
In a jurisdiction, such as Maryland, where many attorneys are licensed to practice in multi-jurisdictions, this question is often raised. The question is usually raised in the context of an attorney who maintains an office in one jurisdiction, but is only licensed to practice in another jurisdiction. The language of Rule 7.5(b) provides specific guidance for law firms. It states:
“A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.”
It would be misleading for an attorney to distribute business cards that list the business address without stating the jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed to practice, if that jurisdiction differs from the attorney’s place of business. In Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harris-Smith, 737 A.2d 567, 356 Md. 72 (1999), Ms. Harris-Smith, who was not admitted to practice in Maryland maintained a law office in Maryland, and her business cards contained her Maryland address. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that Ms. Harris-Smith violated Rules 7.5(a) and 7.1 for failing to indicate that she was not admitted in Maryland. The Court stated that her business cards implied that she was licensed to practice in Maryland. See also, Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission v. Johnson, 770 A.2d 130, 363 Md. 598 (2001) and Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harper, 737 A.2d 557, 356 Md. 53 (1999). In both cases, attorneys were disciplined for, amongst other violations, distributing materials that failed to state that the attorneys were not licensed to practice in Maryland.
Beyond this example of when such information regarding jurisdictional limitation is required, it is certainly permissible for attorneys, should they wish, to indicate the jurisdiction(s) in which they are admitted to practice, provided that the information is accurate and not misleading.
We thank you for your inquiry and hope that the foregoing is responsive thereto.
REFERENCES:
Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.4
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harris-Smith, 737 A.2d 567, 356 Md. 72 (1999)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Johnson, 770 A.2d 130, 363 Md. 598 (2001)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harper, 737 A.2d 557, 356 Md. 53 (1999)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harris-Smith, 737 A.2d 567, 356 Md. 72 (1999)
Ethics Opinions 90-28, 94-13, 99-20.
ASSIGNED TO: Gayle M. B. Driver, Esquire
DATE ASSIGNED: August 28, 2006
DATE DISTRIBUTED: October 18, 2006