This article, Mitchell reprimanded by state Supreme Court, Tim Smith, Greenvill News (6/6/05) reports on a decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanding attorney Theo Mitchell for using the law firm name “Mitchell and Associates” notwithstanding that he he was the sole lawyer in his firm licensed in the state. Mitchell had contended that the use of the phrase “and Associates” was appropriate because it referred to other lawyers in Greenville who help him in specialty cases such as real estate and foreclosure matters. But the court rejected that argument because one of the lawyers with whom he associated was not licensed in South Carolina.
Here’s what Mitchell had to say about the reprimand:
“If the Supreme Court saw fit to sanction me with a public
reprimand, so be it,” he said. “I think it’s too harsh. I definitely
think they went too far. They ought to investigate other people around
the state instead of always jumping on me.”
I agree. Here’s an attorney who apparently is conscientious enough to
seek out assistance on specialized matters that may be beyond his
direct expertise. Yet rather than commend Mitchell for taking these
measures, the bar has taken action to deter him from doing so. Sure,
Mitchell could advertise himself as a true solo – but why shouldn’t he
be able to convey that his firm has a larger scope of practice than
just him? It would be one case if Mitchell had lied and never relied
on outside attorneys at all. But that’s not the case here; Mitchell’s
collaboration with other attorneys was not in dispute.
Moreover, the South Carolina bar’s decision is yet another example of a bar that’s out of touch with changes in the profession. These days, technology facilitates affiliations all over the country. I’m a solo, but I also consider myself part of the Solosez
“firm” of over 1000 attorneys. I’ve hired other lawyers from the firm
while others have sheparded me through complex litigation matters,
frequently helping me win motions or fend off overly aggressive
opposing counsel. I don’t publicize my affiliation, but I don’t think
it would be dishonest or misleading to note my participation in my
firm’s name. Many other attorneys may have even closer ties to other
firms and work on cases together on a more regular basis – even if
they’ve never met. Maybe it’s time to realize that a firm name like
“Joe Shingle and Associates” has different meaning or connotation than
it once did – and that’s not something bad, but something we want to
encourage.
Related posts:
- Court Appointed Work Is Not Supposed To Be A Full Time Job!
- For WSJ Readers – Resources on Starting a Law Firm
- Former Biglaw African American Associates Hang A Shingle
- The Lessons of Sotomayor and Associates
- Why You Can’t Just Take Your Client’s Word for It
