Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 88-019

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
Opinion 88-019
Issued August 12, 1988
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
SYLLABUS: Under DR 2-102(C), a lawyer shall not hold himself out as having a partnership
with one or more other lawyers or professional corporations unless they are in fact partners.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on whether your law firm may
continue to use the name Smith, Jones & Blank for example, when the income from cases handled
by attorneys in the office is no longer shared by all partners based upon a partnership agreement.
You state in your letter that some of the expenses of operating the firm are still shared but now each
attorney must pay his share of the expenses for personal supplies, long distance, and a personal
secretary.
Under DR 2-102(C) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer may not hold
himself out as having a partnership with another lawyer or lawyers, unless they are in fact partners.
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct which have not been adopted by Ohio has a
substantially identical provision which states: “[l]awyers may state or imply that they practice in a
partnership or other organization only when that is the fact.” ABA Model Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 7.5(d). An annotated version of the Model Rules states that “lawyers sharing office
facilities, but who are not in fact partners, may not denominate themselves as, for example, “Smith
and Jones,” for that title suggests partnership in the practice of law.” Annotated Model Rules of
Professional Conduct, 329 (1984).
Furthermore, Ethical Consideration 2-12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
that a lawyer should not hold himself out as a partner or associate if he only shares offices with
another lawyer. See also, ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op.
1265 (1973). These Code provisions are designed to insure that the particular relationship existing
between or among lawyers be

Op. 88-019 2
stated clearly so that the public will not be misled. ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional
Responsibility, Formal Op. 330 (1972). Notwithstanding the above, this opinion is not intended to
address the situations regarding deceased partners and legal professional associations.
Therefore, if you are not in fact engaged in a partnership arrangement, we believe that
continued use of a firm name similar to the one mentioned above, might mislead the public into
believing a partnership exists.
In conclusion, it is our opinion and you are so advised that a lawyer should be scrupulous in
the representation of his professional status and that a lawyer should not hold himself out as having
a partnership with another lawyer or lawyers unless they are in fact partners.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and
limited to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
James W. Mason, Esq.
Secretary, Board of
Commissioners