ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1988-10

MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1988-10

Joint Advertising by Attorneys Sharing Office Space and Not Practicing as a Partnership

Your inquiry poses the problem of whether or not non-partner attorneys who share office space may join together for the purpose of advertising. You have proposed to use the following format for the advertisement:

LAW OFFICES

Charles Brown, Esquire
John Smith, Esquire
Bob Jones, Esquire
432-1101
Town, Maryland

In your inquiry, you have properly focused on Rule 7.5 which states, in pertinent part:

""(a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1 . . . .""

""(d) Lawyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact.""

Rule 7.1, referred to in Rule 7.5 provides that ""[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: (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 . . . .""

You also correctly note that the Comment to Rule 7.5 prohibits space-sharing attorneys who are not partners from designating themselves as, for example, ""Smith and Jones,"" since this title suggests a partnership in the practice of law.

The designation proposed by you, however, alters the prohibited designation ""Smith and Jones,"" only by omitting the joinder word ""and"" and by adding the title ""Law Offices."" The Committee on Ethic believes, therefore, that an advertisement such as the one proposed would nonetheless suggest a partnership in the practice of law as all attorneys are listed under the titular designation of ""Law Offices.""

The advertisement proposed must also be evaluated with respect to Rule 7.1, previously cited. That section, read in conjunction with Rule 7.5 mandates that not only must lawyers sharing offices not represent themselves as practicing as partners, but also must not make communications about themselves or their services which are false or misleading. Although the designation proposed is not false, it would tend to mislead members of the public by implying legal association unless there was a disclaimer of partnership of further explanation of the relationship between the advertising attorneys. We would note, however, that this opinion assumes that the sharing attorneys have not agreed to share expenses or to be jointly and severally liable for acts of the others, and therefore, are not practicing as partners, despite the lack of formality or a written agreement of partnership. See  Formal Ethics Opinion 77-3.