Gone are the days when business cards, firm letterheads and office signs were the main means of communicating lawyers' titles or law firms' names to the public. Modern technology has not only transformed how lawyers and law firms convey professional designations, practice arrangements and firm names, but it has also generated new ways for the public to find lawyers and firms. Where first interactions were once face to face, now they are often online.    
While the web, with its blogs, websites and social media has made it easier to connect and network, the online nature of these interactions has created a virtual distance between lawyers and prospective clients. Thus, lawyers' presentations of themselves in those new media are critical and must pass scrupulous ethical examination.
Similar, Updated Rules
The Disciplinary Rules (DRs) under the old New York Code of Professional Responsibility relating to a lawyer's use of professional notices, letterheads and office signs remain much the same under their successors in the New York Rules of Professional Conduct1 (RPC). RPC 7.5(a) adds "internet websites" as a new category of "professional notices or devices" that lawyers or law firms may use, provided they do not violate RPC 7.1, which prohibits false, deceptive or misleading advertisements. But the basic rules remain the same. RPC 7.4 forbids the use of the term "specialist" to identify a lawyer or firm's practice.  
RPC 8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer or law firm from engaging in conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation and RPC 8.4(h) prohibits any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer. RPC 5.1 requires law firms to make "reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm conform" to the RPCs. Other rules that come into play in specific situations are discussed below.  
Modern Scenarios
This article presents a series of modern scenarios on the ethics issues raised by titles, names and practices, which should be reviewed to assure proper use of the new ways to communicate with the public.  
Scenario 1: Lawyers A and B have separate law practices, but to reduce overhead they share office space. They want to publish a blog to promote their practices and intend to refer to themselves on their blog as "partners" of the "Law Offices of AB." Can they do this?
Blogs, like websites, are subject to RPC 7.1, which prohibits false, deceptive or misleading attorney advertisements.2 In addition, RPC 7.5(c) states that "lawyers shall not hold themselves out as having a partnership with one or more other lawyers unless they are in fact partners." An ethics opinion from the New York County Lawyers' Association3 explained that "where a lawyer represents to the public that he or she is a partner in the absence of any organizational structure (e.g., a partnership or limited liability company), such conduct would likely be a misrepresentation in clear violation of…[RPC 7.5(c)4]."
RPC 1.0(m) defines the term "partner" as "a member of a partnership…authorized to practice law." While A and B may write blog posts together, without a formal legally recognized organizational structure they are not "partners" for purposes of RPC 7.5(c) merely because they share office space. Telling the public that they are "partners" would constitute a misrepresentation, likely violating RPC 7.1.
Similarly, the use of the firm name, "Law Offices of AB" on the banner of the blog appears to be an ethical problem. A New York City Bar opinion5 addressed a similar issue where two attorneys who shared office space wanted to use letterhead referring to their individual practices as "The Law Offices at X Square." The opinion concluded that the name was a prohibited trade name under the ethics rules.6 It rejected the lawyers' proposals to include their individual names below the letterhead and to include language to clarify they were not affiliated by noting, "[t]hese approaches do not eliminate the problems with lack of clarity and capacity to mislead associated with use of a trade name."
The same concerns apply to a blog implying that A and B practice law together, and putting clarifying language in the blog would not solve the problem. A and B can write the blog together but cannot refer to themselves as "partners" or describe their office-sharing arrangement as the "Law Offices of AB."
A blog name like "A and B's Law Blog" may not be misleading. To be careful, A and B should disclose on the blog that they maintain separate and independent law practices. Among other things, the blog should comply with RPC 7.1(h), which requires advertisements to include the name, principal law office address and telephone number of the lawyer or firm whose services are offered.
Scenario 2: Attorney X is retained by Law Firm Y to consult on a single case because of her experience in a particular field. She asks to be listed on the firm website and e-mail signature block as "of counsel" to or "affiliated" or "associated" with Law Firm Y. Is this permissible?
Attorney X's proposed use of the title "of counsel" may run afoul of RPC 7.5(a)(4). That section requires, for an "of counsel" title, the existence of a "continuing relationship" with a lawyer or law firm (other than as partner or associate). ABA Ethics Op. 90-357 (1990) stated that the use of the "of counsel" title "is permissible as long as the relationship between the [attorney and firm] is a close, regular, personal relationship and the use of the title is not otherwise false or misleading." This definition has been adopted by ethics opinions in New York and elsewhere.7 The RPC does not define the term "affiliated" or "associated" but the ABA opinion and some city bar opinions observed that those terms are comparable to the of counsel relationship, requiring close and regular contact.8
ABA Ethics Op. 90-357 noted that "a relationship involving only an individual case" does not suffice for the "of counsel" title to apply. Further, New York City Ethics Op. 1995-8 (1995) observed that the "of counsel" title should not be used to describe "the mere referral of business between firms or an occasional consulting relationship."
This ABA ethics opinion came up in the context of "letterheads, law lists, professional cards, notices, office signs and the like." Nowadays, Law Firm Y's website and Attorney X's e-mail signature block are akin to business cards and firm letterhead.  
While these ethics opinions did not discuss modern technologies or modes of communication, Attorney X cannot use the terms "affiliated," "associated" or "of counsel" to denote her professional relationship with Law Firm Y on the facts given. Her communications with the client and third parties via the firm's e-mail should, in her signature block, clearly disclose her limited consulting role with the firm. In addition, the firm should not post her practice profile on its website because it might misrepresent to the public that she is regularly employed as a lawyer at the firm when in fact she is not.  
Scenario 3: Associate A is the sole attorney practicing in the New York branch office of an outof- state law firm. He maintains regular contact with his supervising partner via e-mail and has access to the firm's document management system and network. Is this arrangement permitted?
The law in New York is controversial regarding whether an associate can be the sole practicing attorney in a New York office of an out-of-state firm. In 1979, in Rosenberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.,9 decided under New York Judiciary Law §470 (which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law), the Supreme Court, New York County, observed that the New Jersey firm in question "has no partner who is admitted to practice in this state. It therefore has no resident partner (admitted in this state) who has the ability to make and be responsible for decisions for the law firm." Thus, the Supreme Court held, "there is no way that an out-of-state law firm, without a partner admitted to practice within this State, may maintain an office for the practice of law in this State in its firm name." Five years later, in 1984, the New York Court of Appeals in New York Criminal and Civ. Cts Bar Assn. v. Jacoby & Meyers10 concluded that a multistate law firm could practice in New York under a firm name including names of non-New York lawyers only if the firm had an active partner who was admitted in New York.
Subsequently, a New York State Bar Association opinion11 reexamined the Jacoby ruling and the question whether a New York office of a multistate firm can be staffed solely by a non-partner admitted in New York who is supervised by an out-of-state partner admitted only in another state. The state bar opined that "[I]f a lawyer is ethically permitted to practice alone, with sole and complete responsibility under [RPC 5.1]12 for his or her law firm's ethical compliance, it is difficult to see…why the same lawyer could not maintain responsibility for ethical compliance by the New York office of a law firm whose partners are all based in offices outside New York. Since the [RPC] allows any lawyer admitted in New York to run a firm alone, there is no obvious reason why the [RPC] should not also allow a lawyer admitted in New York to run the New York office of an out-of-state firm, even if the New York lawyer is an associate rather than a partner." Note, the state bar did not consider emerging technologies as a factor influencing its opinion.
Hence, it is an open question whether Associate A can ethically operate the New York office of the out-of-state firm without the presence of a partner who is admitted and practicing in New York.
Scenario 4: Name Partner A of Firm A&B retires from law practice. The firm wants to continue to use A's name in the firm name and in its domain name, and to keep the former partner's practice profile on the firm website, calling him "of counsel." Can the firm do this? What if the former partner, instead of retiring, moves to another firm or an in-house legal department?
Under RPC 7.5(b), a law firm is prohibited from practicing under a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyers practicing under that name, or under a firm name containing names other than lawyers in the firm. The same rule provides an exception: a law firm name may include the names of retired (and deceased) members. Retired and deceased members may be named, with their "dates" (presumably of firm association—the rule does not specify), on firm letterhead. Firm letterhead may also identify retired members as "of counsel" if they have "a continuing relationship" with the firm. RPC 7.5(a)(4).
An ethics opinion from the state bar dealt with a name partner departing his firm to become general counsel of a corporation.13 The firm inquired whether it could still use the withdrawn partner's name in the firm name. The state bar opinion concluded that use of the partner's name in the firm name violated Rule 7.5(b) because the firm name is "misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under [the] name," given his continued practice of law elsewhere. The opinion cited supporting ethics opinions from North Carolina, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. In another, similar opinion, the state bar rejected theories that such a partner could be considered retired or "of counsel."14
In this hypothetical, as long as Partner A continues to practice law at the firm, even in a nonpartnership role, or is retired from practice, Firm A&B may maintain his name in the firm name and firm domain name and keep his profile online. However, doing so if the partner leaves the firm to practice elsewhere, including as in-house counsel, appears to violate the rules.
What's in a Name (or Title)?
In the Internet age, misleading or confusing statements in new media—websites, blogs, tweets, social media and whatever is invented next year—can be dangerous to the lawyers and law firms posting them. It is important that lawyers and law firms adhere to the ethical rules concerning use of titles, firm names and practice arrangements. The ethics rules do not give lawyers a second chance to make a first impression.