UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 93-37
An attorney who is also a certified public accountant (CPA) maintains two sole proprietorships for the practice of his two professions. As of a certain date in the near future, the attorney plans to move both offices to another building. He intends to maintain the separation between the two practices, including distinct stationery, separate offices, different entrances into the building, and different telephone numbers. Neither letterhead includes reference to the other practice or professional designation.
Question:
What ethical considerations are triggered by the attorney's dual professions? Specifically, may the attorney show both his CPA designation and the fact that he is a lawyer on his business card?
Summary:
An attorney admitted to practice in South Carolina may engage in the simultaneous practice of another profession so long as he meets the requirements of both professions. The South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit showing both professions on the same business card or letterhead, though the preferred choice would be to avoid mention of one profession in connection with the other.
Opinion:
The Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted in South Carolina (SCACR 407) do not expressly prohibit or proscribe the practice of dual professions per se. The dual professional must be careful to recognize his duties as a lawyer under the Rules of Professional Conduct, and must give specific attention to the requirements, inter alia, of Rule 1.6 (maintaining confidences), Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest), Rule 1.8 (entering into business transactions with a client), and Rules 7.1 through 7.5 (advertising).
Under the facts presented, the inquirer's actions seem to have gone beyond what the rules require. The attorney should also be aware of and adhere to any requirements or limitations imposed by virtue of his other profession. This opinion does not reach those considerations.