There’s been a bit of a discussion on #legalethicsTwitter (yes it’s a thing) about what lawyers are allowed to call themselves, professionally.

I was surprised to learn that in Texas, lawyers are not allowed to use trade names for their law firms. They can use their own names and those of active, retired, or deceased partners, and can use entity designations such as “LLC.” Married women can use their maiden names (gee thanks for expressly enumerating that, Texas). But that’s about it.

Wisconsin and most other jurisdictions, on the other hand, allow lawyers to call their firms almost anything they want, so long as it’s not misleading and does not imply a connection with a government agency or with a legal aid organization. So my fine employer and blog sponsor Halling & Cayo S.C. is fine, and would be in every jurisdiction (though service corporations don’t exist everywhere, so the entity type and suffix may be different elsewhere). If I was on my own, "Rosenzweig Legal Ethics” would be fine, though perhaps limiting from a marketing standpoint as I do other work. “Milwaukee Law” may need a disclaimer, at the very least, that I’m not actually affiliated with the City of Milwaukee. “Ethicking Law” would also be fine under the rules but that shtick only goes so far. “Firm with a View of Neighbor’s Clogged Downspout” may be appropriate for current circumstances. (Wisconsin regulators do get a little itchy about law firm names that imply that a firm is bigger or differently structured than it actually is. So, solos, don’t go calling yourself “Name & Associates.”)

There is a movement afoot in Texas however, to allow trade names; this will be put to a referendum in 2021. This is, for reasons I don’t quite understand, controversial. Any trade names would still have to comply with 7.1 and not be misleading, according to Texas State Bar President Randy Sorrels—who, I note, is a partner at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner, though I don’t know if he’d be pushing to change to “Seven Names & Associates.” I bet their receptionist would. But not everyone likes this idea—some believe it “cheapens” the profession. I also note that the guy who complained of this in the article was Michael Sanders, of Sanders LLP—in other words, he will always have a firm name available him that is easy to remember, easy to spell and pronounce, and does not telegraph ethnicity.

According to the Twitter conversation, one lawyer called this an “existential threat” (to which I replied, “Existential Threat Law Center LLP has a nice ring to it” because, hey, #legalethicstwitter). I guess I can’t see that—but then again, I’ve been practicing in Wisconsin my entire career and I’ve lived here my entire adult life so there have always been law firm trade names and nothing has exploded as a result. (Then again, as I went to Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee and applied for Wisconsin bar membership, I got in on diploma privilege and I’ve never had to take a bar exam, and nothing has exploded as a result of that, either.)