Solos Can't Use "& Assocs" in Firm Name

At least in Minnesota, it is now unethical for solo practitioners to use "& Associates" in the law firm name. The Minnesota Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility just adopted that rule in its new Opinion 20.

The stated reason for the rule is that Rule 7.1 prohibits false and misleading statements and Rule 7.5(a) shall not use a firm name or letterhead that is in violation of Rule 7.1.  Using the term "& Associates" in a firm name, the LBPR reasoned, is misleading if there are not more than two licenses attorneys in the firm.  While recognizing that "Associates" has other meanings in general use, the term has come to have a specific meaning in the custom of law firms.

Needless to say, there has been consternation among some solo practitioners.  Many solos feel they are being unfairly picked on; that if large law firms could continue to use the names of dead partners they should be able to intimate non-existent "Associates."  (That is specifically dealt with in the comments to the Minnesota Rule 7.5 - a firm can continue to use the name of a dead partner if their is a continuation of  practice or a trade name.)  Others argued that the LBPR should focus on more important things.  The Board flatly, if not snarkily, rejected those arguments.

I just don't get this, either the Board's insistence on issuing an opinion on this (weighty?) subject or the vehemence of the response.

My first reaction when I heard that the Board had issued Opinion 20 was, "Why?  I thought the Board had gotten out of the business of issuing opinions?"  It used to be the Board's policy to discipline lawyers for violating its Opinions.  That stopped in 2001 with the In Re Admonition in Panel File No. 99-42, where the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a lawyer could be disciplined only for violating a Rule of Professional Conduct and not for violating an Opinion.  Certainly the Opinions can be guides, but they don't have the force they once were thought to have.

But, the Opinion has been issued and as I look at the Opinion, it is right...on a purely logic basis.  It is misleading and false to imply that you have Associates when you do not.  The harm, however, seems more to propriety than reality.  Personally I have long thought that naming your firm "Lawyer & Associates" was tantamount to saying "I'm flying solo but I just don't want to admit it" in a tacky, chest-puffing way.  However, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the public has ever been harmed as a result and I believe I am right that there has never, in the history of the LBPR, been a complaint.  So why is this issue suddenly so important?

Indeed, Opinion 20 seems akin to the babysitter who walks into the house and immediately announces to the kids, "I sure hope none of you were thinking of putting beans up your nose!"  That setting off an instant race to bean jar.  Does the Board really want to be investigating, let alone prosecuting solos for tacking "& Assocs" onto their name?  Why beg for complaints on an issue that seems of so little real import? 

But I am equally puzzled by the attorneys so desperately clinging to the "& Assocs" names.  The underlying assumption seems to be that there is something incredibly valuable to the lawyer in attaching "& Assocs" to his or her name.  Explain to me what the value is (and if it's because it makes you look bigger than you are, you just proved the LBPR right).  The truth is, and I hate to break it to you, "Lawyer & Assocs" is a lousy trade name.  You look like every other follow-the-leader, Tom-Dick-and-Harry lawyer out there.  Those who know the business immediately assume you are a solo and just trying to look bigger than you are (otherwise you'd have your excellent partner's name on the door).  At best you are saying, "it's me and a bunch of no-name-probably-wet-behind-the-ears lawyers."  This is simply weak branding.  If you are using "& Assocs" in your firm name, you should be thinking about changing your name anyway to a stronger brand.

If you think you have developed a good brand with your name, use it and be proud of it.  Adding the "Associates" doesn't make your name as a brand any stronger, it actually diminishes it.  If you haven't already developed a brand around you name, you will have to consider whether you feel you can more quickly build a brand with your name or with some trade name.  (In Minnesota, at least, a firm may use a trade name.)  A trade name will stick out from the crowd better but be less attached to you personally.  If you use a trade name, you will want to make sure that you are picking something unique and you would be well advised to consult with a branding or trademark expert both on the choice of the name and making sure that you register it properly.

My best advise is, move on.  The "& Assocs" brand has never been helpful or distinctive.  You are not being asked to give up anything that has ever really added any real value to your firm.  Regardless of how wrong headed (even if technically right) the LBPR is, you will actually be better off for ditching the "& Assocs" and developing a strong brand name and brand strategy for your firm.

- Peter H. Berge

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Eric Cooperstein, July 02, 2009

Peter, your analysis of all sides of this issue is right-on!

• 
• +0
• 
•