Texas Among Nine State Bars Facing Free Speech Suits Over Law Firm Name Rules
The federal lawsuits argue that wholesale prohibitions on the use of trade names as a firm name are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
January 29, 2020 at 12:00 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
A Utah law firm known as LawHQ has filed nine lawsuits against states, including Texas, that prohibit the use of law firm trade names.
The federal lawsuits, which also target bar officials in Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Georgia, argue that wholesale prohibitions on the use of trade names as a firm name are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
LawHQ filed the suits Jan. 23 along with its principal, Thomas Alvord. That firm is interested in opening offices in other parts of the country but would not be allowed to operate under the naming rules in those states, the suits state.
"It's time for the legal profession to recognize that prohibiting a trade name is unconstitutional," Alvord said in a statement. "We have the right to call ourselves whatever we like, as long as it is not misleading. How does it help the average person to try to distinguish between 20 firms who all are named 'Jones'?"
LawHQ's suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas is against the state bar's Seana Willing, in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
The suit targets Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 7.01(a), which prohibits law firms from advertising their services using trade names. Texas stands apart from almost every other state in forbidding the practice.
"The rule is a holdover from professionalism standards drafted in the early twentieth century, when courts did not yet recognize commercial speech as a form of protected expression and when almost all forms of lawyer advertising were forbidden," the suit claims.
"Nobody could claim that consumers would be better protected if trade names were prohibited in other industries—if the law required Facebook, for example, to be called Mark Zuckerberg & Associates or Apple to be called Jobs & Wozniak," the suit says. "Law firms are no different. On the contrary, prohibiting firms from using trade names, if anything, makes their names more misleading by replacing memorable and easily distinguishable firm names with the names of partners who are often retired, deceased, or unlicensed."
Restrictions on law firm trade names were common before 1977, when the Supreme Court overturned Arizona's ban on lawyer advertising, the suit says. In response to that decision, the American Bar Association issued a new Model Rule 7.5 that allowed trade names to be used by lawyers in private practice, subject to certain restrictions. In 1987 the Federal Trade Commission advised state bar associations that banning trade or fictitious names, regardless of whether there has been any showing of deception, may deprive consumers of valuable information, increase consumer search costs and lessen competition, the suit said.
The ABA eliminated its Model Rule 7.5 entirely in 2019, concluding that the issues addressed by that rule were better addressed by Rule 7.1′s prohibition on false and misleading advertising, the suit states. Most states have followed suit, with the exception of the nine states mentioned in the lawsuits, according to the complaint.
In New Jersey, Charles Centinaro, director of the Office of Attorney Ethics, is the sole defendant in the New Jersey suit. LawHQ sought an assurance from Centinaro in October 2019 that it could operate in New Jersey without threat of discipline, but it received no response, said Robert Donaher of Herold Law in Warren who represents the Utah firm along with Beck and Evans.
LawHQ focuses on "protecting consumers from the proliferation of telephone spam," and it employs local lawyers outside its home state of Utah, the suit said.
LawHQ is not the only law firm to bristle at New Jersey's naming rules. On Jan. 2, a group of former Flaster/Greenberg partners announced the formation of a new firm called Lex Nova Law, with offices in Philadelphia, Cherry Hill, New York and Washington.
The firm name "means 'new law' in Latin and represents a new beginning," Lex Nova said in an announcement of its opening. But to comply with New Jersey's naming regulations, the firm's official name is Lex Nova Law, Eizen/Goldstein/Roderick/Skinner/Spirgel, said one of the firm's principals, Peter Spirgel. The firm is not involved in the LawHQ suit.
"The New Jersey rule should change as it is outdated and makes no sense," Spirgel said. "I understand that there is an interest in prohibiting names such as 'Best Law Firm,' but requiring the name of a current or former attorney to be included in the firm's name is unnecessary in my opinion."
MaryAnn Spoto, a spokeswoman for New Jersey's Administrative Office of the Courts, declined to comment about the LawHQ suit.
Charles Toutant writes for the New Jersey Law Journal, a Daily Report affiliate where a version of this article first appeared.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250