Let me proclaim here and now, for the record, that I’m the founding partner in a law firm, The Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant.  Yes, it’s a law firm of one and I’m the only partner, but my firm is just as legitimate and real as any of these.  So why is it then, that the DC Bar feels it necessary to issue a special opinion (Opinion 332 – November 2005) warning me and every other solo that while it’s alright for us to refer to our law practice as a firm without violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, at the same time, “[we] must exercise caution to insure that the manner in which [we] conduct [our] practices does not mislead clients or potential clients.”  (for a summary, see this article, Washington Lawyer (Dec. 2005).

I guess I should be grateful for the decision, since it doesn’t outlaw solos from referring to ourselves as law firms.  At the same time, just once, I’d love to see a decision,  cautioning large firms about deceptive practices when they promise to deliver expertise and years of experience to a matter and then assign newbie associates to handle it.   Or what about large firms that shorten their names so that they sound smaller and more congenial than they actually are?  Until that happens, I’ll continue to endure this and all the other silly little indignities that the Bars dispense to us solos whenever they have time on their hand.  Those indignities after all are but a small price to pay for all the benefits that go with being a law firm of one.

18 Responses to Why Is A Law Firm of One Ever Misleading?

Carolyn, I think you’re once again going out of your way to be insulted on behalf of solos. Your thin skin, frankly, makes solos seem like whiners and losers.
There are far more solos trying to sound like they are a team of lawyers at your service than large firms trying to sound smaller. (I’m fairly sure you know why law firms reduce the number of names on their masthead, so I won’t insult your intelligence with an explanation.) The question is whether the public is likely to be confused and calling your practice a “firm” can certainly be confusing to the public — depending, for example, on your office sharing situation, and whether non-lawyer staff members are clearly designated.
By the way, I can’t think of any good reason for a solo to use the designation “Law Offices“, even if he or she has two official locations. The Law Office of Carolyn Elefant is surely dignified enough. I had planned to do a blurb on this DC Ethics Opinion even before checking to see if you had written on it, and I was going to specifically ask whether the “Offices” issue had been settled yet.

Reply

Carolyn, I think you’re once again going out of your way to be insulted on behalf of solos. Your thin skin, frankly, makes solos seem like whiners and losers.
There are far more solos trying to sound like they are a team of lawyers at your service than large firms trying to sound smaller. (I’m fairly sure you know why law firms reduce the number of names on their masthead, so I won’t insult your intelligence with an explanation.) The question is whether the public is likely to be confused and calling your practice a “firm” can certainly be confusing to the public — depending, for example, on your office sharing situation, and whether non-lawyer staff members are clearly designated.
By the way, I can’t think of any good reason for a solo to use the designation “Law Offices“, even if he or she has two official locations. The Law Office of Carolyn Elefant is surely dignified enough. I had planned to do a blurb on this DC Ethics Opinion even before checking to see if you had written on it, and I was going to specifically ask whether the “Offices” issue had been settled yet.

Reply

pro bono meets pro humbug

Either my permidementia is really getting out of hand, or the Summer 2005 edition of the Harvard Law Bulletin arrived really late — because, I swear, it was stuffed in my mailbox today, along with the December 2005 edition of Washington [DC] Lawyer .

Reply

pro bono meets pro humbug

Either my permidementia is really getting out of hand, or the Summer 2005 edition of the Harvard Law Bulletin arrived really late — because, I swear, it was stuffed in my mailbox today, along with the December 2005 edition of Washington [DC] Lawyer .

Reply

David, thanks for your comments. I did try to show some restraint since the DC bar came down on my side. But here’s the thing. Since the day I opened my practice, I have always referred to it as a firm. When people ask me what I do, I say that I have my own law firm, because I do. In many ways, it’s no different from using the royal we which I suspect the bar frowns on as well.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s the “little guy” that the bar is concerned about deceiving. In this day and age of the Internet, the bar is concerned that I (or any other solo) can set up a website explaining that “Our firm handles this” or “Our firm can represent you in a major litigation matter.” We can then compete with larger firms for clients because we look just the same as the large firms on line. This is the same type of provincial thinking in the guise of consumer protection that drove the anti-advertising campaigns pre-Bates – and are still at work now. And that is why I find these decisions so troubling.

Reply

David, thanks for your comments. I did try to show some restraint since the DC bar came down on my side. But here’s the thing. Since the day I opened my practice, I have always referred to it as a firm. When people ask me what I do, I say that I have my own law firm, because I do. In many ways, it’s no different from using the royal we which I suspect the bar frowns on as well.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s the “little guy” that the bar is concerned about deceiving. In this day and age of the Internet, the bar is concerned that I (or any other solo) can set up a website explaining that “Our firm handles this” or “Our firm can represent you in a major litigation matter.” We can then compete with larger firms for clients because we look just the same as the large firms on line. This is the same type of provincial thinking in the guise of consumer protection that drove the anti-advertising campaigns pre-Bates – and are still at work now. And that is why I find these decisions so troubling.

Reply

In response to David and in defense of Carolyn, personal attack is the weakest form of argument, and exposure of these “silly little indignities” one of the many reasons that this blog is relevant. I don’t believe it is thin-skinned or whiny to recognize and call out harmfully patronizing behavior…
To me, the question is REALLY whether the public will be meaningfully confused, not merely whether they will be confused. The bar is making an issue out of a non-issue, and when such behavior is so pervasively directed as solos, it becomes slightly offensive…
I do agree with the lack of wisdom in calling a solo practice “Law Offices of…” in the first place. It’s just poor branding.
I call my little army of one VeriTrademark, and my business card says Seattle * New York (though the NY presence is entirely virtual). Lest anyone be confuse me with “brilliantly” (see article referenced in Carolyn’s the post to see why this is facetious) branded firms like WilmerHale, I don’t hesitate to quickly point out that these firms can’t possibly provide as much value to my targeted client base as VeriTrademark does, given their lumbering infrastructures. However, their offices probably do have more expensive artwork, and a few more lemmings roaming the halls in search of cliffs…

Reply

In response to David and in defense of Carolyn, personal attack is the weakest form of argument, and exposure of these “silly little indignities” one of the many reasons that this blog is relevant. I don’t believe it is thin-skinned or whiny to recognize and call out harmfully patronizing behavior…
To me, the question is REALLY whether the public will be meaningfully confused, not merely whether they will be confused. The bar is making an issue out of a non-issue, and when such behavior is so pervasively directed as solos, it becomes slightly offensive…
I do agree with the lack of wisdom in calling a solo practice “Law Offices of…” in the first place. It’s just poor branding.
I call my little army of one VeriTrademark, and my business card says Seattle * New York (though the NY presence is entirely virtual). Lest anyone be confuse me with “brilliantly” (see article referenced in Carolyn’s the post to see why this is facetious) branded firms like WilmerHale, I don’t hesitate to quickly point out that these firms can’t possibly provide as much value to my targeted client base as VeriTrademark does, given their lumbering infrastructures. However, their offices probably do have more expensive artwork, and a few more lemmings roaming the halls in search of cliffs…

Reply

Danny, granted that “Law Offices of…” may be poor branding, the problem is that, at least in New York, ethics rules (specifically DR 2-102) bar the practice of law under trade names such as VeriTrademark. There is an ethics opinion allowing an attorney (“X”) employing a number of associates to market as “The X Group,” however, this opinion doesnt seem to cover solos. So what options is a solo left with other than “Law Office of…” or “X, Attorney at Law?”

Reply

Danny, granted that “Law Offices of…” may be poor branding, the problem is that, at least in New York, ethics rules (specifically DR 2-102) bar the practice of law under trade names such as VeriTrademark. There is an ethics opinion allowing an attorney (“X”) employing a number of associates to market as “The X Group,” however, this opinion doesnt seem to cover solos. So what options is a solo left with other than “Law Office of…” or “X, Attorney at Law?”

Reply

Carolyn,
I thought the following recent advisory opinion from Ohio might interest you. My own personal feeling is that solos who try to pass off their paralegals and nonlawyer staff as “associates” or as members of a “group” or a “firm” should be prohibited from doing so. Not only is this practice misleading to the public but it is also unfair to lawyers like me — solos who practice under our own names without resorting false labels like “firm”, “group” or “law offices”. One lawyer cannot be a firm or a group. And, with all due respect, one office cannot be “offices”.
“The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431
(614) 387-9370 (888) 664-8345 FAX: (614) 387-9379
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 2006-2
Issued February 10, 2006
SYLLABUS: It is proper for a solo practitioner to name his or her law firm “The X Law Group” when “X” is the solo practitioner’s surname and “X” employs one or more attorney as associates. “Group” and “Law Group” are not considered misleading or a trade name when used in naming a law firm comprised of more than one attorney. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to paralegals, other non-attorney personnel, office sharing attorneys, or “of counsel” attorneys.
OPINION: This opinion addresses the use of the words “Group” or “Law Group” in a law firm name.
Is it proper for a solo practitioner to name his or her law firm “The X Law Group” when “X” is the solo practitioner’s surname and “X” employs two attorneys as associates?
In Ohio, law firm names are governed by DR 2-102(B) of the Ohio Code of Professional Conduct, DR 2-104(G), and Rule III of the Supreme Rules of the Government of the Bar of Ohio.
DR 2-102(B) applies to all law firm names.
DR 2-102 (B)
A lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under the name, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that the name of a professional corporation or association, legal clinic, limited liability company, or registered partnership shall contain symbols indicating the nature of the organization as required by Gov. Bar R. III. If otherwise lawful, a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession. A lawyer who assumes a judicial, legislative, public executive, or administrative post or office shall not permit his or her name to remain in the name of a law firm or to be used in professional notices of the firm during any significant period in which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm, and during this period other members of the firm shall not use the lawyer’s name in the firm name or in professional notices of the firm.
DR 2-104(G) applies specifically to legal clinic names. Under DR 2-104(G), a legal clinic name “shall consist only of the names of one or more of the active practitioners in the organization, and may include the phrase “legal clinic” or words of similar import. The use of a trade name or geographical or other type of identification or description is prohibited. The name of any active practitioner in the clinic may be retained after the lawyer’s death, retirement or inactivity because of age or disability, and the name must otherwise conform to other provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and The Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.”
Rule III of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio applies to the name of a legal professional association, corporation, legal clinic, limited liability company, or registered partnership.
Gov. Bar R. III, Section 2. Name
The name of a legal professional association, corporation, legal clinic, limited liability company, or registered partnership shall comply with DR 2-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The name of a legal professional association or legal clinic shall end with the legend, “Co., LPA” or shall have immediately below it, in legible form, the words “A Legal Professional Association.” The name of a corporation, limited liability company, or registered partnership shall include a descriptive designation as required under sections 1701.05(A), 1705.05(A), or 1775.62, respectively, of the Revised Code.
Ohio’s rules do not mention use of the words “Group” or “Law Group” in a law firm name. Thus, the Board must construe the rules. Does the inclusion of the words “Group” or “Law Group” merely add an innocuous descriptive term to a firm name? Or, does the inclusion of “Group” or “Law Group” transform an otherwise proper firm name into a misleading or trade name?
Use of the word “group” in a firm name has been addressed in two states. The Missouri Bar offered, without explanation, this advice: “It would be permissible for a law firm consisting of a principal and associate or two principals to be known as the X Law Group, L.C. It would not be permissible to use the word ‘group,’ if the firm consists of only one attorney.” Missouri Bar, Informal Op. 20000142 (undated).
The New York State Bar answered affirmatively when asked this question: “Under DR 2-102(B), may an attorney use his or her surname together with the word “group” as a law firm name where the attorney’s firm has a number of associates?” New York State Bar Assn, Op. 732 (9/28/2000). Like Ohio, New York’s DR 2-102(B) prohibits trade names and misleading names. The New York committee stated: “We do not believe that the name ‘The X Group’ would deceive the public about the identity, responsibility or status of those who use the name. A group is simply ‘a number of individuals bound together by a community of interest, purpose or function.’ Webster’s Third New World Dictionary (7th ed. 1993). The name ‘The X Group’ signifies nothing more than the attorney X practices law together with a group of other individuals, which is in fact the case.”
Use of the words “Group” or “Law Group” in a law firm name has not been addressed in Ohio; however, use of the words “and Associates” has been addressed. In Opinion 95-1 the Board advised that the phrase “and Associates” may be used in a law firm name if the attorney employs other attorneys.” Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances & Discipline, Op. 95-1 (1995). The Board stated that the phrase “and Associates” in a firm name indicates that an attorney employs other attorneys.
There are similarities and differences between the words “and Associates” and “Group” or “Law Group.” Like the words “Group” or “Law Group,” the words “and Associates” are not mentioned in Ohio’s rules governing firm names.
Unlike the words “Group” or “Law Group,” which are more general in nature, the words “and Associates” are more specific. A group, by definition, is “[a]n assemblage of persons or objects located or gathered together.” Webster’s II, New Riverside University Dictionary 551 (1984). An associate, by definition, is “[a] colleague or companion” or “[a] junior member of an organization or profession; esp., a lawyer in a law firm, usu. with fewer than a certain number of years in practice, who may, upon achieving the requisite seniority, receive an offer to become a partner or shareholder.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed. 132 (2004).
Although “Group” and “Law Group” are general terms, the words are not considered misleading or a trade name when used in the name of a law firm comprised of more than one attorney. When more than one attorney practices in a law firm, “Group” or “Law Group” in the firm name is appropriate because there actually is a “group” of attorneys.
But, when there is only one attorney in a law firm, the words “Group” or “Law Group” are not proper in a law firm name. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to paralegals or other non-attorney personnel. DR 2-102 does not authorize references to or inclusion of names of non-attorneys in a law firm name. “Group” or Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to office sharing attorneys. Office sharing attorneys are not in the same firm and should not be included in a firm name. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to “of counsel” attorneys. “Of counsel” attorneys have a continuing, close, regular, and personal relationship with a law firm, but the relationship is other than as a partner or associate. See Bd Comm’rs on Grievances & Discipline, Op. 2004-11 (2004).
Thus, the Board advises as follows. It is proper for a solo practitioner to name his or her law firm “The X Law Group” when “X” is the solo practitioner’s surname and “X” employs one or more attorney as associates. “Group” and “Law Group” are not considered misleading or a trade name when used in naming a law firm comprised of more than one attorney. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to paralegals, other non-attorney personnel, office sharing attorneys, or “of counsel” attorneys.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney’s Oath of Office.”

Reply

Carolyn,
I thought the following recent advisory opinion from Ohio might interest you. My own personal feeling is that solos who try to pass off their paralegals and nonlawyer staff as “associates” or as members of a “group” or a “firm” should be prohibited from doing so. Not only is this practice misleading to the public but it is also unfair to lawyers like me — solos who practice under our own names without resorting false labels like “firm”, “group” or “law offices”. One lawyer cannot be a firm or a group. And, with all due respect, one office cannot be “offices”.
“The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431
(614) 387-9370 (888) 664-8345 FAX: (614) 387-9379
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 2006-2
Issued February 10, 2006
SYLLABUS: It is proper for a solo practitioner to name his or her law firm “The X Law Group” when “X” is the solo practitioner’s surname and “X” employs one or more attorney as associates. “Group” and “Law Group” are not considered misleading or a trade name when used in naming a law firm comprised of more than one attorney. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to paralegals, other non-attorney personnel, office sharing attorneys, or “of counsel” attorneys.
OPINION: This opinion addresses the use of the words “Group” or “Law Group” in a law firm name.
Is it proper for a solo practitioner to name his or her law firm “The X Law Group” when “X” is the solo practitioner’s surname and “X” employs two attorneys as associates?
In Ohio, law firm names are governed by DR 2-102(B) of the Ohio Code of Professional Conduct, DR 2-104(G), and Rule III of the Supreme Rules of the Government of the Bar of Ohio.
DR 2-102(B) applies to all law firm names.
DR 2-102 (B)
A lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under the name, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that the name of a professional corporation or association, legal clinic, limited liability company, or registered partnership shall contain symbols indicating the nature of the organization as required by Gov. Bar R. III. If otherwise lawful, a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession. A lawyer who assumes a judicial, legislative, public executive, or administrative post or office shall not permit his or her name to remain in the name of a law firm or to be used in professional notices of the firm during any significant period in which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm, and during this period other members of the firm shall not use the lawyer’s name in the firm name or in professional notices of the firm.
DR 2-104(G) applies specifically to legal clinic names. Under DR 2-104(G), a legal clinic name “shall consist only of the names of one or more of the active practitioners in the organization, and may include the phrase “legal clinic” or words of similar import. The use of a trade name or geographical or other type of identification or description is prohibited. The name of any active practitioner in the clinic may be retained after the lawyer’s death, retirement or inactivity because of age or disability, and the name must otherwise conform to other provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and The Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.”
Rule III of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio applies to the name of a legal professional association, corporation, legal clinic, limited liability company, or registered partnership.
Gov. Bar R. III, Section 2. Name
The name of a legal professional association, corporation, legal clinic, limited liability company, or registered partnership shall comply with DR 2-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The name of a legal professional association or legal clinic shall end with the legend, “Co., LPA” or shall have immediately below it, in legible form, the words “A Legal Professional Association.” The name of a corporation, limited liability company, or registered partnership shall include a descriptive designation as required under sections 1701.05(A), 1705.05(A), or 1775.62, respectively, of the Revised Code.
Ohio’s rules do not mention use of the words “Group” or “Law Group” in a law firm name. Thus, the Board must construe the rules. Does the inclusion of the words “Group” or “Law Group” merely add an innocuous descriptive term to a firm name? Or, does the inclusion of “Group” or “Law Group” transform an otherwise proper firm name into a misleading or trade name?
Use of the word “group” in a firm name has been addressed in two states. The Missouri Bar offered, without explanation, this advice: “It would be permissible for a law firm consisting of a principal and associate or two principals to be known as the X Law Group, L.C. It would not be permissible to use the word ‘group,’ if the firm consists of only one attorney.” Missouri Bar, Informal Op. 20000142 (undated).
The New York State Bar answered affirmatively when asked this question: “Under DR 2-102(B), may an attorney use his or her surname together with the word “group” as a law firm name where the attorney’s firm has a number of associates?” New York State Bar Assn, Op. 732 (9/28/2000). Like Ohio, New York’s DR 2-102(B) prohibits trade names and misleading names. The New York committee stated: “We do not believe that the name ‘The X Group’ would deceive the public about the identity, responsibility or status of those who use the name. A group is simply ‘a number of individuals bound together by a community of interest, purpose or function.’ Webster’s Third New World Dictionary (7th ed. 1993). The name ‘The X Group’ signifies nothing more than the attorney X practices law together with a group of other individuals, which is in fact the case.”
Use of the words “Group” or “Law Group” in a law firm name has not been addressed in Ohio; however, use of the words “and Associates” has been addressed. In Opinion 95-1 the Board advised that the phrase “and Associates” may be used in a law firm name if the attorney employs other attorneys.” Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances & Discipline, Op. 95-1 (1995). The Board stated that the phrase “and Associates” in a firm name indicates that an attorney employs other attorneys.
There are similarities and differences between the words “and Associates” and “Group” or “Law Group.” Like the words “Group” or “Law Group,” the words “and Associates” are not mentioned in Ohio’s rules governing firm names.
Unlike the words “Group” or “Law Group,” which are more general in nature, the words “and Associates” are more specific. A group, by definition, is “[a]n assemblage of persons or objects located or gathered together.” Webster’s II, New Riverside University Dictionary 551 (1984). An associate, by definition, is “[a] colleague or companion” or “[a] junior member of an organization or profession; esp., a lawyer in a law firm, usu. with fewer than a certain number of years in practice, who may, upon achieving the requisite seniority, receive an offer to become a partner or shareholder.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed. 132 (2004).
Although “Group” and “Law Group” are general terms, the words are not considered misleading or a trade name when used in the name of a law firm comprised of more than one attorney. When more than one attorney practices in a law firm, “Group” or “Law Group” in the firm name is appropriate because there actually is a “group” of attorneys.
But, when there is only one attorney in a law firm, the words “Group” or “Law Group” are not proper in a law firm name. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to paralegals or other non-attorney personnel. DR 2-102 does not authorize references to or inclusion of names of non-attorneys in a law firm name. “Group” or Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to office sharing attorneys. Office sharing attorneys are not in the same firm and should not be included in a firm name. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to “of counsel” attorneys. “Of counsel” attorneys have a continuing, close, regular, and personal relationship with a law firm, but the relationship is other than as a partner or associate. See Bd Comm’rs on Grievances & Discipline, Op. 2004-11 (2004).
Thus, the Board advises as follows. It is proper for a solo practitioner to name his or her law firm “The X Law Group” when “X” is the solo practitioner’s surname and “X” employs one or more attorney as associates. “Group” and “Law Group” are not considered misleading or a trade name when used in naming a law firm comprised of more than one attorney. “Group” or “Law Group” should not be used in a law firm name to refer to paralegals, other non-attorney personnel, office sharing attorneys, or “of counsel” attorneys.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney’s Oath of Office.”

Reply

Interesting analysis. What about those of us who assemble legal teams on a regular basis to handle large cases but for the most part remain solo practitioners. I hold myself out as “…Law Group” to emphasize that. I think there’s some haziness there.

Reply

Because a “firm” implies more than one person. You are a solo. Any solo that refers to their practice as a firm is slimy as fuck to me.

Reply

Just because you’re a lawyer, doesn’t mean that you have a law firm. Quite frankly, you shouldn’t be allowed to refer to yourself as a firm.

A firm implies something else, namely that it’s more than just some person working out of a room.

Reply

“In many ways, it’s no different from using the royal we which I suspect the bar frowns on as well.”

This is also unethical and dishonest, although many people do this.

It’s deliberately attempting to mislead clients, the public, etc.

If you’re embarrassed by the fact that you’re a solo (which is why you pretend to have a firm and refer to yourself as “we”), perhaps you should join an actual firm.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *