Do Trade Names 'Cheapen' the Profession? Texas Lawyers to Debate Rule Change
Proposed revisions of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct would eliminate the ban on trade names, which is the target of an ongoing lawsuit against Texas and several other states.
March 06, 2020 at 04:24 PM
4 minute read
Texas state flag. (Photo: CrackerClips Stock Media/Shutterstock.com)A proposed change in the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct would lift a prohibition against the use of trade names for law firms, a divisive issue in Texas and elsewhere that has led to free speech suits in several states.
Although it would eliminate the blanket Texas prohibition on trade names, the proposed revision of Rule 7.01 would continue to prohibit lawyers from making or sponsoring false or misleading statements about the qualifications or services of a lawyer or firm.
State Bar of Texas President Randall Sorrels said the package of rule changes, including the trade name rule, is likely to go to a vote of members of the State Bar of Texas sometime next spring. Sorrels said that if the membership approves the rule changes, it would moot the lawsuit filed against Texas over the blanket prohibition against the use of trade names.
On Jan. 23, a Utah firm known as LawHQ filed lawsuits against Texas and eight other states that target bar officials, alleging that wholesale prohibitions on the use of trade names for firms is unconstitutional and should be abolished.
The Texas suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and names Seana Willing, the Texas chief disciplinary counsel, as the defendant. Willing has not filed an answer.
Rebecca Evans, general counsel of LawHQ in Salt Lake City, Utah, did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.
The proposed revisions to Rule VII, which regulates communications lawyers make to obtain professional employment, have been years in the making.
The Texas Committee on Disciplinary Rules and Referenda (CDRR) has been working on a package of proposed changes to Rule VII since 2018, and it recently sent a recommendation to the State Bar of Texas Board of Directors that included the rule that maintained the prohibition against the use of trade names.
However, at a meeting Jan. 24, the bar board voted to return the proposal to the committee for additional consideration, specifically the possibility of amending the proposed rules to "be consistent" with the majority of other states in connection with trade names.
At its Feb. 5 meeting, the committee revised its proposal for Rule 7.07 to eliminate the ban on trade names, and published the proposed in the March Texas Bar Journal.
A public hearing on the proposed rule changes is scheduled for April 7 and the committee is expected to vote in May whether to submit the recommendation to the bar board.
The chair of the CDRR, Lewis Kinard, who is also general counsel of the American Heart Association in Dallas, did not immediately return a telephone message.
Sorrels, a partner in Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner in Houston, said Texas lawyers have strong feelings on both sides of the issue of trade names. That was apparent in public comments collected by the CDRR on the proposed rule changes.
Christopher Gagne, a lawyer in Leander, which is located near Austin, commented in writing that he wholeheartedly agrees with the proposed change to eliminate the ban on law firm trade names.
"It is long overdue to move Texas into conformity with other jurisdictions that permit the use of trade names for law firms," Gagne wrote.
On the other side, Houston lawyer Michael Sanders, of Sanders LLP, wrote that the use of trade names "cheapens the profession" and he is opposed.
In an interview on Friday, Sanders said the change will not benefit the public.
"You are going to see a lot of divorce, personal injury and criminal defense attorneys using it, and people need to be picking a lawyer based on something other than who has the best-sounding trade name," he said.
Read More
Texas Among Nine State Bars Facing Free Speech Suits Over Law Firm Name Rules
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
© 2025 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 All
Houston Trial Lawyer Mary-Olga Lovett Leaves King & Spalding to Open Boutique
3 minute read
Deal Watch: Private Equity Dealmakers Make 2025 Predictions Amid Deal Resurgence
12 minute read
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
