Opinion ID: 2362113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Violation of MRPC 7.1 and 7.5(a) and (b)

Text: Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 Firm names and letterheads. (a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. A trade name may be used by a lawyer in private practice if it does not imply a connection with a government agency or with a public or charitable legal services organization and is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1 (b) A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification of the lawyers in another office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located. Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 Communications concerning a lawyer's services. A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it: (a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; (2) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the rules of professional conduct or other law; or (c) compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated. Before Judge Harrington, Respondent addressed Bar Counsel's queries regarding his firm's letterhead and the correspondence bearing it which he mailed. See Respondent's testimony, Part III.B.3, supra. In his brief, however, he did not raise the issue of whether Judge Harrington erred when she found that he violated MRPC 7.1 and 7.5(a) and (b) when he did not provide his jurisdictional limitations on his firm's letterhead. Considering the testimony provided in Part III.B.3, supra, we conclude that Judge Harrington had before her clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated subsections of MRPC 7.1 and 7.5(a) and (b). Petitioner excepts to Judge Harrington's conclusion that Respondent did not violate MRPC 7.5(d), which states [l]awyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact. Petitioner argues that Respondent and McLemore practiced law ostensibly as a professional corporation under the name of McLemore & Johnson, P.C. for two years before they filed an Articles of Incorporation with the State. The hearing judge found, however, that while Respondent and McLemore acted carelessly in creating their letterhead and establishing their professional corporation, ... their use of the initials `P.C.' was not a deliberate attempt to avoid liability. Further [Johnson and McLemore] cured the defect when they filed the Articles of Incorporation with the State and paid any taxes due. Although we agree that Respondent's conduct was careless and irresponsible, we deny Petitioner's exception and conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence upon which Judge Harrington found that Respondent did not violate MRPC 7.5(d).