Can a lawyer include a religious statement like 'Jesus Is Lord' and a dove in a law firm advertisement?

Plain-English summary

A Florida lawyer asked whether he could include the statement "Jesus Is Lord," with a dove beneath it, in his advertisements. (The committee noted that thirteen members concurred in the opinion of Chairman Ervin, that this was a minority position of the Professional Ethics Committee, and that the Board of Governors directed that this opinion prevail.)

The committee explained that the focus of lawyer advertising restrictions had shifted to prohibiting communications that are fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading, with DR 2-101 and DR 2-102 supplying specific prohibitions and the Ethical Considerations providing only aspirational guidance. Reviewing DR 2-101 and its subsections, the committee found that the statement and dove did not fall within any specific prohibition: as a statement of personal belief it was not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive, did not appeal primarily to fear, greed, or similar emotion, and did not amount to showmanship, puffery, self-laudation, or hucksterism.

Drawing on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in In re R.M.J., the committee reasoned that the state may restrict non-misleading commercial speech only to serve a substantial interest by narrowly drawn means. It concluded that DR 2-101 should not be construed to prohibit the advertisement, treating the message (like "Keep Florida Green" or "Support the United Way") as personal expression rather than client inducement with no inherent danger of deception, and noting that the Supreme Court had declined to treat bad taste as a ground for restricting commercial speech. The committee cautioned that not every form of expression would pass muster, because DR 2-101 still contains numerous specific prohibitions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Florida's lawyer-advertising rules were substantially rewritten after this opinion, and the analysis predates those changes.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer put a religious message in an advertisement?

A: The opinion concluded that the statement "Jesus Is Lord" and a dove did not violate the Code, treating the message as personal expression rather than a false or misleading communication.

Q: Why was this not treated as improper advertising?

A: The opinion concluded the message fell within no specific prohibition of DR 2-101 and, under In re R.M.J., the state could not restrict non-misleading commercial speech absent a substantial interest served by narrowly drawn means.

Q: Does the opinion mean any slogan is permissible?

A: The opinion cautioned that not every form of expression would pass muster, because DR 2-101 contains numerous specific prohibitions, including against showmanship, puffery, and sensational slogans.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the lawyer-advertising provisions of CPR DR 2-101 and DR 2-102 (the subject is now treated under Florida Rules 4-7.13, 4-7.14, 4-7.16, and 4-7.21; Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2), and applies First Amendment commercial-speech doctrine from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR DR 2-101; DR 2-102; EC 2-1 through EC 2-15(a)

Cases:

• In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed.2d 64 (1982)
• Central Hudson Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (quoted)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 86-7: Withdrawal of Obsolete Advertising Opinions
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 88-2: 'Juris Doctor' on Letterhead and in Advertising

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-82-1/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-82-1-2.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 82-1
April 1, 1983
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

A lawyer's inclusion of the statement "Jesus is Lord" and a drawing of the dove of peace in his advertisements does not violate the commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CPR: DR 2-101 [See current 4-7.13; 4-7.14; 4-7.16]; DR 2-102 [See current 4-7.21]; EC 2-1 through 2-15(a)
Case: In the Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S.Ct. 929, 71 L.Ed. 64 (1982);

A Florida lawyer inquires whether he may under the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility include in his advertisements the statement, "Jesus Is Lord," under which appears the dove of peace.

Thirteen members of the Committee concur in the following opinion by Committee Chairman Thomas M. Ervin, Jr. Although this constituted a minority position of the Professional Ethics Committee, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has directed that this opinion prevail.

Under the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility and recent judicial pronouncements, the primary focus of lawyer advertising restrictions has shifted to prohibition of that which is fraudulent, deceptive or misleading. DR 2-101 and DR 2-102 provide specific prohibitions and EC 2-1 through EC 2-15(a) provide aspirational guidance. The former system of general prohibition of advertising with limited authorized exceptions no longer prevails.

In essence, the inquiry before the Committee is whether the statement "Jesus Is Lord" accompanied by portrayal of a dove in a lawyer advertisement is violative of DR 2-101. While the statement is not of such a nature, standing alone, to be "commercial" speech, its intended inclusion in a lawyer advertisement brings into play the foregoing rule.

Upon careful review of DR 2-101 [See current Rules 4-7.13; 4-7.14; 4-7.16], and each of its subsections, the Committee is of the opinion that the intended statement and depiction of a dove do not fall within any express or specific prohibition. As a statement of personal belief, it does not fall within DR 2-101(A)'s proscription of statements which are "false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive," [See current Rule 4-7.13] nor does it fall within any specific prohibition of DR 2-101(B) [See current Rules 4-7.13 and 4-7.14(a)(5) and (6)].

While DR 2-101(C)(5) and (6) are somewhat more pertinent, the statement does not appeal primarily to "fear, greed, desire for revenge or similar emotion" as proscribed by subsection (5) [See current Rule 4-7.15(a)] and is not of such a nature as to constitute "showmanship, puffery, self-laudation or hucksterism" as proscribed by subsection (6).

Ethical Considerations 2-1 through 2-15(a), as aspirational guidelines, cannot be the independent source of ethical prohibition as to this or any other inquiry. They may provide guidance to the individual lawyer in his consideration and selection of a course of professional conduct and may, where appropriate, guide this Committee in its construction of Code provisions. These aspirational guidelines emphasize the primary purpose of lawyer advertising to be informing the public of the availability of legal services without misrepresentation. They should not be read, however, to thereby mandatorily prohibit all expression or communication which is not objectively "useful" to the public in the attorney selection process. If so read, ethical considerations would be rendered mandatory despite the express command of the Supreme Court of Florida that disciplinary rules state the mandatory, minimum level of professional conduct and that ethical considerations are "aspirational in character."

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged that DR-101 is less than precise in some of its commands and might be subject to a construction which extends to the instant advertisement. In seeking the proper construction, however, the Committee is provided guidance by recent pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court in related cases. In the most recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in In The Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 71 L.Ed.2d 64, 102 S.Ct. 929 (1982), the court dealt primarily with, and disapproved, a ban on direct mail advertising. That decision and its recent predecessors, however, appear to generally restrict the state's ability to prohibit forms of advertising to those instances where the advertising is inherently misleading, or has proven to be misleading in practice, and prohibition is the only practical solution. As to non-misleading communications, the court held in pertinent part:

Even when a communication is not misleading, the state retains some authority to regulate. But the state must assert a substantial interest and the interference with speech must be in proportion to the interest served. Central Hudson Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S., at 563-564. Restrictions must be narrowly drawn, and the state lawfully may regulate only to the extent regulation furthers the state's substantial interest. . . .

Guided by the foregoing, the Committee is of the opinion that DR 2-101 should not be construed to extend to, and prohibit, a legal advertisement which includes the statement, "Jesus Is Lord," and a depiction of a dove. The statement in question, and others such as "Keep Florida Green," "Support Law Day," "Support ERA," or "Support the United Way," may attract some degree of attention but are more in the nature of personal expression than client inducement. No real or inherent danger of client deception is apparent. While the inclusion of such a message in a commercial advertisement may be viewed by many as "professional bad taste," the United States Supreme Court in In The Matter of R.M.J., supra, declined to recognize bad taste as a viable ground for restriction of commercial speech.

For the foregoing reasons, the Committee is of the opinion that the inquiring lawyer's intended conduct, and advertisement, do not violate the commands of the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility.

While expressing the foregoing opinion, the Committee cautions that not every form of speech or expression which might be devised will pass muster under the Code. DR 2-101 includes numerous specific prohibitions and expressly disapproves any public communication which:

(6) Is intended or is likely to attract clients by use of showmanship, puffery, self-laudation or hucksterism, including the use of slogans, jingles or garish or sensational language or format. [No current rule equivalent.]

This is a mandatory admonition of the Supreme Court of Florida and, unless and until changed, constitutes one expression by that court of what should be viewed as deceptive or misleading in the context of lawyer advertising.