https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-72-39/
firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm,” but it. expressly recognizes and preserves the exception that “if otherwise lawful firm may use as, or. continue to include in, its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-74-20/
DR 2-102(B) prohibits a lawyer in private practice from practicing under a firm name which contains names other than those of one or more lawyers in the firm, but provides an exception for symbols to designate professional service corporations.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-65-55/
The Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 65-55 discusses the permissibility of adding a new name to a law firm's name that already contains the name of a deceased partner. It cites local custom, absence of imposition or deception, firm continuity, and reasonable time as the criteria for this practice. It also refers to the American Bar Association's opinions and statutes on this issue.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-93-7/
A third example of potential impropriety could arise if a misleading trade name is used by the proposed new firm. Use of a trade name such as “Entertainment Law Center” [not the name proposed here] could be misleading, and thus violative of Rule 4-7.1 and 4-7.7 [See current Rules 4-7.13 and 4-7.21], if it falsely suggests to the public that ...
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-67-8/
A partnership may not reflect on its letterhead a reference to a former firm name, which includes the name of a former member of the firm who is now a judge, according to the Florida Bar's advisory ethics opinion. The opinion explains the reasons for this rule and the alternatives for announcements after the dissolution of the firm.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-00-1/
OPINION 00-1. April 30, 2000. Advisory ethics opinions are not binding. A law firm may continue to use a firm name which contains the name of a former partner. of the firm who has retired and become a traditional “of counsel” to the firm, by offering legal. services only through the firm.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-68-58/
In the course of its interpretation of the various relevant Canons, the Committee observed as follows: Canon 33 provides that in the selection and use of a firm name, no false, misleading, assumed or trade name should be used.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-76-7/
OPINION 76-7. May 12, 1977. Advisory ethics opinions are not binding. A lawyer who is practicing law as a full-time employee of a firm may not practice under. his own name to the exclusion of his firm name. However, if he also maintains an individual. practice the use of his own letterhead would be proper.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-74-48/
It is permissible for an interstate partnership with an office in Florida to use its firm name. in this state even though none of the lawyers listed in the firm name are admitted in Florida, but. the letterhead should indicate which members of the firm are admitted in Florida. Note: See, The Florida Bar v.
https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-64-20/
The Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 64-20 discusses the propriety of continuing to practice under a firm name that includes the name of a deceased partner who was a judge. It cites Canon 33 of the Code of Professional Conduct and the advertising rules of the Florida Bar.
