Can an Arizona lawyer who is not board-certified put a practice 'specialty' on the firm letterhead?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer who held no certification from the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization asked whether he could print "Commercial Law and Litigation Specialty" on his firm letterhead, alongside the usual firm name, members, address, phone, and admissions.
The committee concluded the proposed wording stated or implied that the lawyer was a specialist in commercial law and litigation. It noted the Board recognized certification in only five fields at the time (bankruptcy, criminal law, real estate, taxation, and workmen's compensation), and there was no certification available in commercial law or litigation. Under ER 7.4 a lawyer may not state or imply that he is a specialist except as the rule allows (patent and admiralty designations, or certification under the Board's rules).
The opinion reasoned that the purpose of ER 7.4 was to keep the public from being misled into thinking a lawyer is a certified specialist, and that most laypeople would read "specialty" to mean the lawyer is a "specialist." The committee held that, except as allowed upon certification, a lawyer is prohibited from using any letterhead language indicating that he is a "specialist," "specializes," "has special emphasis," or any other phrase built on the word "special."
The opinion concluded that the lawyer could, however, state a self-imposed limitation: he could say his practice is limited to commercial law and litigation, or that he places emphasis on those fields, because ER 7.4 does not bar a factual description of the nature of a practice. The proposed "Specialty" language was not permitted.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1987, before the State Bar of Arizona's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a non-certified Arizona lawyer call a practice area a "specialty" on letterhead?
A: The opinion concluded no; the word "specialty" stated or implied that the lawyer was a specialist, which ER 7.4 barred absent certification by the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization.
Q: Could the lawyer describe his practice areas at all?
A: Yes; the committee concluded he could state that his practice is limited to, or emphasizes, commercial law and litigation, because that is a factual description rather than a claim of specialist status.
Q: Why did the committee read "specialty" as misleading?
A: The opinion reasoned that most laypeople would understand someone with a "specialty" to be a "specialist," so the wording risked implying a certification the lawyer did not hold.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied ER 7.4 (Model Rule 7.4), governing communication of fields of practice and claims of specialization, together with ER 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1) on false or misleading communications and ER 7.5 (Model Rule 7.5) on firm names and letterheads. At the time, ER 7.4 permitted "specialist" designations only for patent and admiralty practice or under the rules of the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ER 7.4 / Model Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice; specialization)
- ER 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
- ER 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
See also
- AZ Ethics Op. 87-01: Retired Judge on Letterhead
- AZ Ethics Op. 87-04: Communication of Fields of Practice
- AZ Ethics Op. 87-12: Targeted Direct-Mail Solicitation
Source
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
6/1987
Attorney showing area of specialty on his letterhead that is not recognized by Arizona Board of Legal Specialization.
FACTS
The inquiring attorney is not a certified specialist in any area recognized by the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. He inquires whether he can utilize stationery containing the following inscription:
"Commercial Law and Litigation Specialty"
He proposes to utilize ordinary office stationery containing the name of the law firm, the names of the members of the law firm, the address, the telephone number, and the jurisdictions where each attorney is admitted, followed by the inscription noted above.
QUESTION
May a lawyer who is not certified as a specialist in any field recognized by the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization, with ethical propriety, use the inscription "Commercial Law and Litigation Specialty" on his office letterhead?
ETHICAL RULES INVOLVED
ER 7.1. Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services
ER 7.4. Communication of Fields of Practice
A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law. A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is a specialist except as follows:
(a) a lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States patent and Trademark Office may use the designation “patent attorney" or a substantially similar designation;
(b) a lawyer engaged in admiralty practice may use the designation "admiralty," "proctor in admiralty" or a substantially similar designation; and
(c) a lawyer specializing.in a particular field of law or law practice may hold himself out as such specialist, but only in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. (emphasis added)
ER 7.5. Firm Names and Letterheads
(a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates ER 7.1. * * *
OPINION
It is the opinion of the committee that the words “Commercial Law and Litigation Specialty" proposed to be printed on the lawyer's letterhead constitute a statement or implication that the lawyer is a specialist in the fields of commercial law and litigation.
At present, the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization has recognized five fields for which there may be certification. Those fields are bankruptcy, criminal law, real estate, taxation and workmen's compensation. There is no provision for certification in either commercial law or litigation. ER 7.4 does not prohibit an attorney from communicating a self-imposed limitation of his practice. Thus, the lawyer could indicate on his stationery that he limits his practice to commercial law and litigation, or that he places emphasis on commercial law and litigation in his practice, but he may not hold himself out as a specialist by the proposed language.
The intent of ER 7.4 is, after all, not to mislead the public into believing that one has been certified as a specialist. To expect the public to discern that the indication of a specialty does not mean that the lawyer is certified as a specialist is, the committee believes, asking too much. Most laymen would believe that one who has a “specialty" is a “specialist".
To say that a lawyer's practice is limited to practice in a particular area of the law is a factual assertion of the nature or character of his practice. To indicate, as the inquiring attorney proposes, that he practices within a "specialty", especially in light of the certification as a specialist that is available in certain limited areas, suggests qualifications above the ordinary.
Therefore, it is the opinion of this committee that, except as specifically provided upon certification pursuant to the rules prescribed by the Arizona Board of Legal
Specialization, a lawyer is prohibited from utilizing on his stationery any indication that he is a “specialist", "specializes", "has special emphasis” or any other phrase which has as its base the use of the word "special".
We accordingly conclude that the proposed conduct of the inquiring attorney is not permitted by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.
© State Bar of Arizona 1987
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1987 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.