Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 91-004

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 91-4
Issued February 8, 1991
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio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.]
[Not current-subsequent rule amendments to DR 2-101, eff. Jan. 1, 1993, Aug. 16, 1993, Jan. 1, 2000.]
SYLLABUS: "Debt Relief Clinic" is both a trade name and a misleading name. In Ohio, the
practice of law under the name "Debt Relief Clinic" would be a violation of DR 2-102 (B). Under
DR 2-102 (B) & (D) it would be proper to practice law in Ohio under the name "X and Associates"
even though attorney X is not licensed in Ohio, provided that the jurisdictional limitations are
enumerated on the letterhead and in other permissible listings. Individuals whose names have been
obtained from published notices of foreclosures or suits filed are potential consumers of legal
services and may be the targets of direct mail campaigns under DR 2-101 (B), provided that the
communication complies with DR 2-101. The DR 2-107 restrictions on division of fees apply to
attorneys not in the same firm and do not apply to the division of fees by law partners licensed in
different jurisdictions.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on questions regarding firm
names, direct mail advertising and division of fees that have arisen in regard to a proposed
partnership agreement. You are licensed to practice law in Ohio, are employed by a law firm
headquartered in another state, and have been asked by the owner of the law firm to enter into a
partnership agreement. The owner of the firm is not licensed in Ohio but is licensed in the state
where the firm is headquartered. Your specific questions are as follows:
1. Whether it is proper in Ohio to name a law practice "Debt Relief Clinic" without
reference to an attorney's name in the firm name;
2. Whether it is proper in Ohio to practice under the name "X and Associates" if
partner X is licensed to practice law in another state, but not licensed in Ohio;

Op. 91-4 2
3. Whether it is proper to send letters to individuals whose names are obtained
from published notices of foreclosures or suits filed, informing them that if they
are not already represented your law firm would be willing to consult with them
regarding their remedies under federal law;
4. Whether there are any limitations as to division of fees by law partners licensed
in different jurisdictions?
Question 1
DR 2-102 (B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically addresses the proper use of
firm names. DR 2-102 (B) states in part that "[a] lawyer in private practice shall not practice under
a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under
such name, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the
firm."
EC 2-10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that the use of a trade name could
mislead the public concerning the identity, responsibility, and status of those practicing thereunder.
EC 2-10 advises that a partnership name should be composed of the name of one or more of the
lawyers practicing in the partnership.
"Debt Relief Clinic" does not contain the name of one or more of the lawyers practicing in the
partnership. "Debt Relief Clinic" is both a trade name and a misleading name. In Ohio, the
practice of law under the name "Debt Relief Clinic" would be a violation of DR 2-102 (B).
Question 2
The proposed partnership name, "X and Associates" does contain the name of one of the lawyers
who would be practicing in the proposed partnership and therefore facially complies with DR 2-102
(B). However, since attorney X is not licensed to practice in Ohio, the Board looks for other
guidance as to whether the name is proper. DR 2-102 (D) is a provision of the Code relating to
partnerships formed or continued among lawyers licensed in different jurisdictions and is set forth
below.
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

Op. 91-4 3
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. CPR, DR 2-102 (D).
DR 2-102 (D) provides the authority for using the same firm name in each jurisdiction even though
the firm name may contain the name of an attorney not licensed to practice in this state. It is the
opinion of the Board that under DR 2-102 (B) & (D) it would be proper to practice law in Ohio
under the name "X and Associates" even though attorney X is not licensed in Ohio, provided that
the jurisdictional limitations are enumerated on the letterhead and in other permissible listings.
Question 3
Restrictions on lawyer advertising have undergone an evolution since the Supreme Court's holding
in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona that lawyer advertising is constitutionally protected commercial
speech. 433 U.S. 350 (1977). States may no longer categorically prohibit targeted direct mail
advertising. Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988). The Shapero court specifically
addressed the issue of whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
categorically prohibit lawyers from soliciting legal business for pecuniary gain by sending truthful
and nondeceptive letters to potential clients known to face particular legal problems. The Shapero
court rejected arguments that blanket prohibitions on targeted direct mail solicitation are justified
because of a potential for overreaching, undue influence, coercion or invasion of privacy.
According to the court, written forms of solicitation allow time for reflection and exercise of choice
by the consumer. Id.
DR 2-101 (B) permits direct mail communication with potential consumers of legal services
provided that the communication does not contain a “false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive
statement or claim" as prohibited by DR 2-101 (A). DR 2-101 (B) is set forth in its entirety below.
In order to facilitate the process of informed selection of a lawyer by potential
consumers of legal services, a lawyer may publish or broadcast, subject to DR 2-102
through DR 2-105, information in print media, in written or printed material
distributed to consumers through the mail or otherwise; or over radio or television.
The information disclosed by the lawyer in such publication or broadcast shall
comply with DR 2-101 (A). CPR, DR 2-101 (B).

Op. 91-4 4
The Board has previously issued two advisory opinions on targeted direct mail solicitation. A legal
aid lawyer may use a targeted direct mail campaign to solicit indigent clients for representation for
no fee on eviction actions after an eviction has been filed. Ohio Sup.Ct., Op. 88-3 (1988). An
attorney may use a targeted direct mail campaign to solicit potential clients for representation in
criminal matters. Ohio Sup.Ct., Op. 90-21 (1990). In Op. 90-21 the Board advised attorneys using
targeted direct mail to review DR 2-101 (C) defining false or misleading communication, to be
aware that targeted individuals may be more vulnerable than the general public, and to not interfere
with an existing attorney-client relationship.
Ethics committees in other states have opined that a lawyer may send solicitation letters to
individuals whose homes are subject to foreclosure: if not misleading or false and if in compliance
with the Code, Virginia State Bar Ass'n, Op. 904 (1987); if factual determination is made that
targeted individuals are not in physical, mental or emotional state that could render them unable to
exercise judgement, Maryland State Bar Ass'n, Op. 88-19 (1988); if truthful and non-deceptive,
Alabama State Bar Ass'n, Op. 88-101 (1988).
Direct mail campaigns facilitate the process of informed selection of a lawyer by potential
consumers of legal services. It is the Board's opinion that individuals whose names have been
obtained from published notices of foreclosures or suits filed are potential consumers of legal
services and may be the targets of direct mail campaigns under DR 2-101 (B), provided that the
communication complies with DR 2-101.
Question 4
DR 2-107 is the provision in the Code governing the division of fees among lawyers. DR 2-107
explicitly places restrictions on the division of fees by lawyers who are not in the same firm, but
does not specifically address the division of fees by law partners licensed in different jurisdictions.
It is the opinion of the Board that the DR 2-107 restrictions on division of fees apply to attorneys
not in the same firm and do not apply to the division of fees by law partners licensed in different
jurisdictions. However, the Board advises that attorneys should comply with applicable state laws
regarding partnerships and ethical requirements of the states where licensed.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and limited
to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.