Ethics, 1273 COBJ, Vol. 3, No. 2 Pg. 53
Opinions of the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar Association are published here for the information of the members of the Association. Formal opinions are given on matters of general and continuing interest to the Bar. Informal opinions are given in response to specific inquiry.
Informal Opinion: 10/8/73
Topic: Patent attorney; letterhead
Digest: It is improper for a patent attorney to include on his letterhead the name of a registered patent agent.
Facts
An attorney desires to include on his letterhead the name of a registered patent agent. A registered patent agent is permitted to represent inventors before the U.S. Patent Office in preparing and prosecuting patent applications.
Opinion
It is ethically improper for an attorney to include on his letterhead the name of a registered patent agent. We concur with Opinion 545 (May 1, 1940) of the ethics committee of the Bar Association of New York City which deals with this question. It is our opinion also that the inclusion of the patent agent's name on the letterhead of the attorney would constitute unethical advertising on the part of the attorney whenever the letterhead was used by the patent agent in correspondence with his clientele.
Since the attorney in question is admitted to the general practice, the inclusion of the registered patent agent's name on the letterhead of the attorney, and the use by such stationery by the patent agent in his correspondence, could constitute his advertising of the attorney as a general practitioner.
Formal Opinion 257 (June 9, 1944) of the ABA Committee on Professional Ethics lends support to our conclusion. It states that a law list or directory publishing the names of lay patent agents and of firms containing lay patent agents must list such patent agents and firms apart from attorneys and firms composed of attorneys only. In addition, the opinion points out that an attorney may enter into a partnership with a layman who is an agent licensed by the United States Patent Office only if the partnership's activities are limited to those which laymen are permitted to perform under the Patent Office Rules.
Our Opinion 41 (February 3, 1968) should also be noted. That opinion, dealing with the problem of a practicing attorney who was also a licensed certified public accountant and who holds himself out as qualified to practice law and accounting...
To continue reading
Request your trial