Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto;max-width: 100%;height: auto" loading="lazy" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-2878" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2016/10/Globalization-300x273.jpg" alt="International communication concept" width="300" height="273">As we&rsquo;ve <a href="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/2015/12/five-legal-ethics-developments-to-watch-for-in-2016/">predicted before</a>, the increasing globalization of high-level legal practice continues to&nbsp;create questions about forms of legal practice &ndash; in particular, vereins,&nbsp;a structure aimed at letting&nbsp;firms based in different countries operate under a unified brand.&nbsp; Mega-firms <a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/581856/fulbright-dq-bid-tests-waters-for-verein-conflict-claims">Fulbright &amp; Jaworski </a>&nbsp;(subs. req.) and <a href="http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202737863556/Dentons-Verein-Status-Doesnt-Shield-It-from-a-Conflict-?slreturn=20151128095216">Dentons </a>have faced motions to disqualify centered on such structural issues, and now a <a href="http://www.legalethicstexas.com/Ethics-Resources/Opinions/Opinion-663.aspx">Texas ethics opinion </a>issued last month questions whether lawyers in the Lone Star state can use a verein name on pleadings.&nbsp; (Hat tip to <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__linkedin.com_in_bresslerdan&amp;d=CwMF-g&amp;c=Cw6jQ1O21v_aGXA_UaKobx5Hu7RYVWKFNSkSTAdyM40&amp;r=_3wkEy31Gpvgl7CmMot2h2ICY42A1L65Vh-c8CcF6E8&amp;m=Wc0U_rY-7e65PjfNlCLXQ9kSkHos45woo0CeMFgHzO0&amp;s=mQFVvKOrL8zUeYMzBiyAFAY-QiCwgLCkvTrSEXBzPHA&amp;e=">Dan Bressler</a> and the <a href="http://www.lawfirmrisk.com/2016/10/recent-ethics-opinions-more-naming-from.html">Law Firm Risk Management blog </a>for alerting us to the opinion.)
Five AmLaw 100 firms affected
In Opinion 663, the Texas Professional Ethics Committee concluded that under the state&rsquo;s Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Texas lawyers in an organization such as a verein &ldquo;may not use the name of the organization as their law firm&rsquo;s name on pleadings or other public communications&rdquo; unless all the names are those of current or former lawyers in the Texas&nbsp;firm or a predecessor firm.
According to an <a href="http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202769104876/Ethics-Opinion-Questions-Use-of-Swiss-Verein-Firm-Names-in-Texas?slreturn=20160916093601">article in Texas Lawyer</a>, five firms on the AmLaw 100, which lists the highest-grossing U.S. law firms, are Swiss vereins that include Texas lawyers, including DLA Piper, Baker &amp; McKenzie, Hogan Lovells, Norton Rose Fulbright and Squire Patton Boggs.
The Committee based its opinion, which is advisory, on <a href="https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&amp;Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&amp;ContentID=27271">Texas&rsquo;s Rule 7.01(a)</a>, which unlike the analogous&nbsp;<a href="http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_5_firm_names_letterhead.html">Model Rule on firm names</a>, expressly bars lawyers from practicing under a&nbsp;&ldquo;a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm,&rdquo; (except for deceased/retired lawyers&rsquo; names or names of predecessor firms).
The Committee&rsquo;s analysis&nbsp;used a hypothetical Texas firm formerly named &ldquo;Smith Johnson,&rdquo; that has joined an &ldquo;international verein&rdquo; and become known as &ldquo;Brown Jones Smith.&rdquo;&nbsp; The Texas lawyers in the verein would be violating Rule 7.01(a), said the&nbsp; Committee, because&nbsp;&ldquo;there has never been a lawyer in the Texas law firm or any predecessor firm named Brown or Jones.&rdquo;
In addition, like&nbsp;the analogous Model Rule,&nbsp;Texas Rule 7.02 prohibits &ldquo;misleading&rdquo; firm names, and the Texas Committee concluded that the use of the &ldquo;Brown Jones Smith&rdquo; name would also be misleading, by creating &ldquo;the appearance that all lawyers in all the law firms that are in the verein are members of a single law firm when in fact they are not.&rdquo;&nbsp; The firm&rsquo;s statements about its composition in&nbsp;advertising disclaimers don&rsquo;t&nbsp;diminish the misleading nature of the communication, the Committee said.
Be careful what you ask for?
According to Texas Lawyer, the Texas Committee issued Opinion 663 in response to&nbsp;an inquiry&nbsp;from Robert Newman, who is of counsel with Norton Rose Fulbright (a verein with Texas lawyers),&nbsp;and a former chair of the Committee.&nbsp; Asking for an advisory ethics opinion, and then getting an adverse one, is always a&nbsp;possibility, although even an adverse opinion at least tells you where you stand, ethically speaking.&nbsp; But the reactions of the current Committee chair and the mega-firms contacted by Texas Lawyer&nbsp;are interesting, and indicate that it will basically be business as usual for the firms, notwithstanding the (advisory) opinion.&nbsp; The Committee chair said that &ldquo;Literally nothing is going to happen&rdquo; unless someone files a grievance against a lawyer for using a verein name, which he said would be a &ldquo;rare&rdquo; occurrence.
For their part, two firms contacted by Texas Lawyer &mdash; Norton Rose Fulbright and Baker &amp; McKenzie &mdash; said they do not plan to make any changes as a result of the ethics opinion.&nbsp; The magazine quotes the managing partner of Baker&rsquo;s Dallas office, who said &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve been practicing in Texas as Baker &amp; McKenzie since 1986 and plan to continue to do so.&rdquo;
Whether this ethics opinion will resonate with bar regulators in other jurisdictions, and whether it will generate some disciplinary cases remains to be seen.&nbsp; Also interesting is the Texas committee&rsquo;s view that the law firms in the verein are not members of the &ldquo;same firm,&rdquo; which might have a potential&nbsp;impact on analyzing future conflict of interest issues, among other things.&nbsp; Stay tuned for further developments.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

Ethics opinion nixes use of verein names in TX, but firms say “Business as usual.”