Ethics Opinion 278

Partnership With Foreign Lawyer

在哥伦比亚特区获得执业许可的澳博app可以与未在美国任何司法管辖区获得执业许可的外国澳博app组成合伙或其他形式的专业协会，只要该合伙或协会不损害D.C. lawyer’s ability to uphold ethical standards.

Applicable Rules

• Rule 5.1 (Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer)
• Rule 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law)
• Rule 7.5(b) (Firm Names and Letterhead)
• Rule 7.5(d) (Implying Practice in a Partnership)

Inquiry

A member of the D.C. Bar inquires whether, under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, 他和他的公司的其他成员可以加入合伙经营的澳博app只在瑞典执业许可. The lawyer licensed in Sweden will be resident and practicing in the firm’s London office, which, the inquiry asserts, 澳博app可以按照英国法律服务提供的惯例行事.

This inquiry requires us to determine whether a member of the D.C. Bar可以与在非美国执业的外国澳博app合伙或以其他形式的专业协会执业.S. jurisdiction but is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States.

Discussion

在美国，拥有多个司法管辖区的合伙制澳博app事务所——由在多个州有执业执照的澳博app组成——毫无疑问是被接受的. As the practice of law increasingly assumes an international dimension, 跨国澳博app事务所合伙和其他形式的跨越国界的专业协会也变得同样普遍. Because of their international scope, 这些合伙关系可能涉及仅在美国以外的司法管辖区获得许可的澳博app的从属关系.

Just as our ethical standards have evolved to permit multi-jurisdictional law partnerships involving U.S. lawyers, they also, with appropriate safeguards, similarly accommodate partnerships or other forms of professional association with foreign lawyers. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that members of the D.C. Bar可以与没有在美国任何司法管辖区获得执照的外国澳博app合作，只要采取适当措施确保协会不会损害D.C. Bar member’s ability to uphold ethical standards.¹

In this jurisdiction, we have long accepted, without ever expressly addressing the issue, the existence of partnerships between D.C. Bar members and attorneys who are admitted only in U.S. jurisdictions other than D.C. Such associations are permissible, however, only to the extent that they do not impair the D.C. Bar member’s ability and obligation to uphold ethical standards. For example, when a D.C. lawyer practices law in association with others, 他或她必须确保所有参与提供法律服务的个人遵守基本的道德要求，如为客户保密. See, e.g., Rules 5.1, 5.2, 5.3.

同样的考虑同样适用于审查与没有在任何美国执业许可的外国澳博app合作的道德影响.S. jurisdiction.² The critical inquiry will be whether any aspect of the association is likely to impair the D.C. 澳博app满足法律服务中适用的道德要求的能力.

In this regard, 必须考虑到外国澳博app的教育要求的一般相似性，以及指导外国澳博app提供法律服务的专业行为和纪律标准的兼容性. If the foreign lawyer’s education and training were materially less than that of a U.S. 澳博app，或者管理外国澳博app行为的专业标准与D .制定的标准不相符.C. Bar, any partnership with such an attorney might impair the D.C. lawyer’s ability to uphold the D.C. 职业行为规则或遵守道德标准，如为客户保密和避免利益冲突的需要. Cf. Rule 5.1(a)(澳博app事务所合伙人“应作出合理努力，确保事务所采取有效措施，合理保证事务所内所有澳博app均遵守职业行为规则”).

This is an inquiry that must be undertaken on a case by case basis. 通过确定与客户保密和利益冲突有关的问题作为特别关注的领域, we do not mean to suggest that these are the only ethical issues that need to be considered. Rather, the D.C. 澳博app必须确保拟议的协会不会以任何方式损害或阻碍其履行道德义务的能力.

与外国持牌澳博app成立任何专业协会必须满足的另一个基本要求是，该协会不与任何D.C. attorney’s ethical obligations. Lawyers not admitted to practice in the District of Columbia are, of course, subject to restrictions against the unauthorized practice of law in this jurisdiction (D.C. App. R. 49), and Rule 5.5(b) prohibits D.C. 禁止澳博app协助非澳博app公会会员从事构成未经授权的法律执业的活动. Any partnership with a foreign attorney must comply with these obligations.

In addition, D.C. 澳博app和澳博app事务所必须继续遵守有关使用信头和事务所名称的道德要求. See Rule 7.5(b) (“a law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, 但是，在事务所的办公室中，澳博app的身份应当标明对未在事务所所在司法管辖区执业的澳博app的管辖权限制.”). Thus, like any multi-jurisdictional partnership, 与外国澳博app的合伙企业必须确保其信头恰当地标明个人澳博app被许可执业的司法管辖区.

Finally, members of the D.C. 只有在事实属实的情况下，澳博app才可以声明或暗示他们在合伙或其他组织中执业. Rule 7.5(d). In forming a partnership with a foreign attorney, the D.C. lawyer should confirm, both as a matter of U.S. and foreign law, that the relationship created is properly described and held out to clients.

In reaching the conclusion that a D.C. 澳博app可以与没有在美国任何司法管辖区执业许可的外国澳博app组成合伙或其他形式的专业协会，只要该合伙或协会不损害D.C. lawyer’s ability to uphold ethical standards, we join several other jurisdictions that have considered similar issues and reached the same result. See, e.g., N.Y. State Op. 658 (Jan. 24, (澳博app可以与非犹他州的澳博app组成合伙关系或以其他方式联合，这些澳博app被授权在美国境内的其他司法管辖区执业或在外国从事同等职能的澳博app). We are aware of no jurisdiction that has concluded otherwise.

Inquiry No. 97-7-33
Adopted: February 18, 1998

1. 本意见假定(但不决定)调查中所述的拟议安排符合D .的所有方面.C. substantive law and with applicable Swedish and United Kingdom law and ethical rules; it therefore addresses only the ethical issues under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct presented by the proposed arrangement.
2. Of course, a foreign attorney who also is admitted to practice in one or more U.S. jurisdictions is subject to the supervisory authority and disciplinary system of the U.S. jurisdiction(s) in which he is admitted. Because of this fact, it is unnecessary to consider such attorneys as “foreign” lawyers for purposes of this analysis.