The Florida Bar

Ethics Opinion

Opinion 74-48

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 74-48
December 26, 1974
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
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. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1978), which discusses the
requirements of a bona fide interstate partnership.]
CPR:
Opinion:

DR 2-102(D)
65-15

Vice Chairman Daniels stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar contemplates formation of an interstate
partnership with a New York law firm and requests guidance regarding operations
of the interstate partnership in Florida.
The formation of interstate partnerships is sanctioned by DR 2-102(D), which provides:
A partnership shall not be formed or continued between or among lawyers
licensed in different jurisdictions unless all enumerations of the members and
associates of the firm on its letterhead and in other permissible listings make clear
the jurisdictional limitations on those members and associates of the firm not
licensed to practice in all listed jurisdictions; however, the same firm name may be
used in each jurisdiction.
In view of the underscored language above, the New York firm name may be used in
Florida although none of the lawyers in such firm name are admitted in Florida. Former opinions
to the contrary, such as 65-15 [since withdrawn], have been overruled by the subsequent
amendment to the Code of Professional Responsibility underscored above. However, the
Committee reaffirms the following language from former Opinion 65-15:
. . . it is not improper for a Florida lawyer to be a member of an interstate law firm
which maintains offices both in Florida and elsewhere. The partnership, however,
must be a full, bona fide partnership in which the profits and losses of the several
offices are actually shared according to the terms of the partnership agreement. It
is improper to engage in such an arrangement if its true effect is merely to create
an association whereby legal matters are referred from one office to another and
fees are shared only with reference to the particular matters so referred.
***

. . . all attorneys who are members or associates of such firm must be “amenable
to professional discipline” at the place where the partner or associate is actually
engaged in practice and the partner or associate must be a member of the bar
authorized to practice law at that place; and that the public and other lawyers must
not in any way be misinformed or misled concerning the authority of any member
of an interstate firm to practice in a particular jurisdiction. In the latter connection,
if the name of a lawyer is listed on the letterhead of a Florida firm when that
lawyer is not admitted to practice in Florida, then an affirmative statement must
appear on the letterhead indicating that the lawyer is not authorized to practice in
this state. Further, it is not proper to list the name of any attorney in a telephone
directory, published and used in Florida, unless the attorney is admitted to
practice in this state.
Under the contemplated interstate partnership, the partnership letterhead used in Florida
will use the New York firm name at the top. On the left margin the letterhead will have a heading
“Partners Admitted in Florida” and will thereafter list only the partners admitted in Florida. The
Committee deems this an appropriate method to avoid misleading the public as it will indicate to
the public that the lawyers in the firm name are not admitted in Florida. However, care should be
exercised in the conduct of the firm’s Florida practice to avoid any false impression that other
partners are Florida lawyers.