Can an attorney who is also a licensed physician list both M.D. and J.D. (and a medical specialty) after his name on letterhead, business cards, and announcements to other lawyers?

Plain-English summary

An attorney who was also a practicing physician (specializing in anatomic and clinical pathology, occasionally forensic pathology) planned to build a consultation-referral law practice limited to personal injury and medical malpractice work, assisting other attorneys in evaluating cases, taking depositions, and examining medical witnesses. He asked whether he could place "M.D., J.D." and his medical specialty (for example, Fellow of the College of American Pathology) after his name on stationery, business cards, in legal journals, and in announcements of his availability as a consultant to other lawyers. He stated the purpose was to inform attorneys of his education and training, not to claim special competence in any area of law.

The Committee concluded that he may. Rule 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making a false, deceptive, or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services; Rule 7.2(a) permits advertising subject to Rule 7.1; and Rule 7.7(a) prohibits a firm name, letterhead, or professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. Assuming the medical licensure and specialty are accurate, the opinion reasons that using those designations on letterhead and cards, or in announcements to other lawyers about availability for consultation, would not be false, deceptive, or misleading. The opinion cites Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 512 U.S. 136 (1994).

The opinion expressly does not reach the separate question of advertising particular fields of law practice, which it notes is governed by Rule 7.2(f) and Rule 7.4, nor the content of advertising or solicitation directed at laypersons.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Mississippi lawyer who also holds an accurate medical license and specialty designation may display both the M.D. and J.D. credentials, and the specialty, on stationery, business cards, in legal journals, and in announcements of availability to other lawyers. The opinion grounds that conclusion in Rule 7.1's prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading communications: where the credentials are true, the dual designation is not misleading. The opinion does not address claims of competence in specific fields of law, which it points to Rules 7.2(f) and 7.4 to govern, nor advertising aimed at laypersons.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who is also a doctor put both M.D. and J.D. after his name?

A: Per this opinion, yes, where the medical licensure and specialty are accurate. The opinion concludes that accurate dual designations on letterhead, cards, and announcements are not false, deceptive, or misleading under Rule 7.1.

Q: Can he also list his medical specialty or board fellowship?

A: Yes. The opinion expressly approves including the medical specialty (such as a College of American Pathology fellowship) along with the M.D. and J.D. designations, assuming it is accurate.

Q: Does the opinion approve advertising a specialty in a particular field of law?

A: No. The opinion states it does not address communicating particular fields of law practice, noting that such advertising is governed by Rule 7.2(f) and Rule 7.4, nor does it address content directed at laypersons.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct on lawyer advertising and professional designations: Rule 7.1 (false, deceptive, or misleading communications, the analog of Model Rule 7.1), Rule 7.2 (advertising, Model Rule 7.2), Rule 7.7 (firm names, letterhead, and professional designations), and Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization, Model Rule 7.4). The Committee treats accuracy as the controlling factor: a true credential, accurately stated, does not offend Rule 7.1, and the designation-specific Rule 7.7(a) keys off the same Rule 7.1 standard.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Mississippi Rule 7.1: false, deceptive, or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services.
• Model Rule 7.2 / Mississippi Rule 7.2: advertising (Rule 7.2(a) permitting advertising subject to Rule 7.1; Rule 7.2(f) on fields of practice).
• Model Rule 7.4 / Mississippi Rule 7.4: communication of fields of practice and specialization.
• Mississippi Rule 7.7: firm names, letterhead, and professional designations.

Cases:

• Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 512 U.S. 136 (1994), on truthful professional credential designations.

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 150: Inactive Member on Letterhead
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 179: Non-Lawyer on Letterhead
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 180: Firms 'Of Counsel'

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/139/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1036/et_op_139-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 139

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED December 11, 1987

AMENDED April 06, 2013

FIRM NAME - LETTERHEAD - An attorney who is also a licensed medical doctor may ethically use the abbreviated forms of medical doctor and juris doctor together after his name as well as his medical specialty on stationery and business cards and in legal journals and in announcements of availability as a consultant/associate to other lawyers.

The Ethics Committee of The Mississippi Bar has been asked to render its opinion on the following situation:

An attorney is also a practicing physician specializing in anatomic and clinical pathology and occasionally practicing forensic pathology. The attorney-doctor intends to develop a consultation-referral type of law practice, in addition to continuing his medical practice. The attorney-doctor intends to limit his law practice to personal injury and medical malpractice cases. This type of practice would involve assisting attorneys in evaluating cases for merit, taking depositions and in trying cases: e.g., cross and direct examination of physicians and medical personnel. The attorney-doctor maintains separate offices for his medical practice and for his legal practice.

The requesting attorney asks if he may ethically use the abbreviated forms of medical doctor (M.D.) and juris doctor (J.D.) together after his name as well as his medical specialty on stationery and business cards: e.g.,______ M.D., J.D. Fellow of the College of American Pathology (F.C.A.P.) in legal journals and announcements of availability as a consultant/associate to other lawyers. The requesting attorney advises that the purpose of the dual designation (M.D.-J.D.) on business cards and stationery is to inform attorneys of his education and training and not indicating any special competence in a particular area of law.

The Committee concludes that the attorney may ethically include the abbreviated forms of M.D. and J.D. after his name as well as his medical specialty on his stationery and business cards and in legal journals and announcements of his availability as a consultant/associate to other lawyers. Rule 7.1 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from making a "false, deceptive or misleading communication" about the lawyer or his services. Rule 7.2(a) permits a lawyer to advertise his services through a public communication subject to the requirement of Rule 7.1. Rule 7.7(a) prohibits a lawyer from using a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. Assuming that the requesting attorney's medical licensure and specialty are accurate, the use of these designations on letterhead and cards or in announcements to other lawyers concerning his availability for consultation would not be false, deceptive, or misleading. See Ibanez v. Fla. Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Regulation, 512 U.S. 136 (1994).

The requesting attorney does not specify particular fields of practice of law to be communicated. Therefore, this opinion does not address that question other than to note that such advertising is governed specifically by Rule 7.2(f) and Rule 7.4. Further, this opinion does not address the content of advertisements or solicitation directed at laymen.