|
Dear Editor,
As a member of the general public, I fail to see the non-technical cogency of Leslie Randolph"s article entitled "Practice Pointer: Using
"& Associates" in a Firm Name" in the April 2003 Utah Bar Journal.
Certainly any member of the public who selects "Wendell Wilkie & Associates"
wants to be represented by Wendell Wilkie. Nobody chooses to be represented by a nameless associate. The fact that thereby the client actually secures Wendell Wilkie"s personal
representation hardly seems to be either a deception or a detriment. There is little of real substance here to warrant the protective intervention of the Bar or the Courts.
By
comparison, consider the equally deceptive names of the powerful and proud firms. Just how many decades has it been since C.C. Parsons, Calvin Behle or George W. Latimer actually provided
any legal representation at Parsons, Behle & Latimer? Supposedly so easily bedazzled by the prospect of Wilkie"s nameless "associates," might not a public idiot be just
as easily beguiled by the prospect of legal representation under the personal direction of these equally ghostly figures?
How is the mythic use of "Wendell Wilkie &
Associates" any more misleading to the public than the mythic use of "Old Dead Luminaries PC"? Perhaps this is really more a matter of power and influence than of
professional ethics; or, conversely, perhaps the professional ethics are just a guise to preserve the power of the influential.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Jensen, MD, JD, FCLM
|
