Legal Opinion
In Re Review of Opinion 475 of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics & DR 2-102(C)
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided April 28, 1982PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
*78PASHMAN, J.
New Jersey law firms have always included only the names of New Jersey lawyers. That custom is now enforced by Disciplinary Rule 2-102(C), which forbids the use of law firm names “unless all those named are or were members of the bar in New Jersey.” The purpose of the rule is obvious. It is reasonable to expect that those listed in a law firm name are licensed to practice in this State. If those persons are not so licensed, the firm name is deceptive to consumers of legal services. To the extent law firm names with unlicensed lawyers defeat…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- Rivera v. GernerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- Petition of Felmeister & IsaacsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
- In Re SackmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- Matter of FelmeisterSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.