Can a Mississippi lawyer advertise that he is a board-certified trial specialist certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an attorney certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA) in civil or criminal trial advocacy could inform the public and advertise that he is a board-certified trial specialist. The opinion described the NBTA's certification requirements (extensive trial experience, evaluation of a trial brief, professional references, continuing legal education, and a rigorous day-long written examination) and acknowledged the certification might be an admirable status that helps clients choose counsel.

The opinion turned to Rule 7.4(b), which provides that a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is a specialist except that a lawyer admitted to patent practice may use "patent attorney" or a similar designation, and a lawyer engaged in admiralty practice may use "admiralty," "proctor in admiralty," or a similar designation.

The opinion concluded that, because the Committee knew of no Mississippi procedure recognizing the NBTA trial certification or specialty, and in the absence of such a procedure, an attorney may not indicate in public communications about his services that he is certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the adoption of the current Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct effective June 22, 1994 (amended February 5, 1999), though it cited Rule 7.4(b) numbered as in the current rules. Mississippi did not adopt the ABA's 2002 Ethics 2000 revisions wholesale, and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer advertise that he is a board-certified trial specialist?

A: Under this opinion, no. It concluded that a lawyer may not state or imply he is a certified specialist in any field other than patent or admiralty, and that Mississippi recognized no procedure for the NBTA trial certification.

Q: Did the certification's rigor change the result?

A: No. The opinion acknowledged the NBTA certification might be admirable and could help clients choose counsel, but concluded that without a Mississippi procedure recognizing it, the lawyer could not advertise the certification.

Q: What specialist designations were allowed at the time?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 7.4(b) permitted a lawyer admitted to patent practice to use "patent attorney" (or a similar designation) and a lawyer in admiralty practice to use "admiralty," "proctor in admiralty," or a similar designation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Mississippi Rule 7.4(b) (communication of fields of practice; limits on claiming specialist status), corresponding to Model Rule 7.4. As the rule then read, it barred a lawyer from stating or implying specialist status except in patent and admiralty practice, and the opinion applied that bar to a private trial-advocacy certification not recognized by any Mississippi procedure.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 7.4(b) (communication of fields of practice; specialist designations limited to patent and admiralty) (cf. Model Rule 7.4).

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 156: Client Newsletters and Legal Seminars
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 198: Listing an Out-of-State Lawyer as 'Of Counsel' and 'Tax Counsel'
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 163: 'No Recovery, No Fee' Advertising

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/153/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1437/35a_et_op_153.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 153

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED June 02, 1988

COMMUNICATION OF FIELD OF PRACTICE - An attorney may not publicly communicate the fact that he is certified or a specialist in any field other than that of patent or admiralty.

The Ethics Committee of the Mississippi State Bar has been requested to render an opinion on the following situation:

An attorney has requested to know whether or not it is permissible to inform the public and advertise that the attorney is a Board Certified Civil Trial Advocacy or Criminal Trial Advocacy specialist. The attorney has been certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, a group founded in 1977 whose literature states that its purpose is to provide the public and the profession with the highest quality representation and assurance of excellence in the Courtroom. The NBTA further states that its certification is an objective verifiable indication that a certified attorney possesses the knowledge and skills essential for the provision of excellent services in civil or criminal trial advocacy. Its requirements for certification include extensive trial experience, evaluation of a trial brief prepared by the attorney, professional references from lawyers and judges, participation in continuing legal education, and successful completion of a rigorous day long written examination. After having been certified by this organization, the attorney requests an opinion as to whether or not he may inform the public of his certification as a specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

Mississippi attorneys are bound by the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct and the answer to this request is found in Rule 7.4(b), which states as follows:

A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is a specialist except as follows:

(1) 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;

(2) a lawyer engaged in admiralty practice may use the designation "admiralty," "proctor in admiralty" or a substantially similar designation.

While the Committee finds that the questioned trial certification might certainly be an admirable and desirable status for an attorney and may enable clients to make an informed choice of counsel, the Committee knows of no procedure in Mississippi that recognizes this trial certification or specialty. Therefore, in the absence of a Mississippi procedure for certification or specialization, an attorney may not indicate in public communications about his services that he is certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.