Can a lawyer let a NALA-certified paralegal use the initials CLA or CLAS on the firm's letterhead and correspondence?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an attorney may permit a paralegal certified by the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) to use the initials CLA or CLAS on legal correspondence, where non-lawyer assistants were identifying themselves as "Certified Legal Assistants" based on passing a NALA examination.

The opinion identified Rule 7.7 (firm names and letterheads), which forbids using a professional designation that violates Rule 7.1, and Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), which forbids false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair communications. It reviewed two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, holding it violated the First Amendment to censure an attorney for stating on his letterhead that he was certified as a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (while noting a state could screen certifying organizations), and Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, holding lawyers could not be barred from stating true CPA or certified financial planner credentials on letterhead. It also noted that Rule 7.6 had been amended to let a lawyer communicate a certification, with disclosure that there is no Mississippi procedure for approving non-ABA-accredited certifying organizations.

For paralegals specifically, the opinion relied on its prior Opinion No. 93, which held that an attorney may list a paralegal's name on the firm's letterhead so long as there is language stating that the paralegal is not a lawyer. On that basis, it concluded that a paralegal may use the CLA or CLAS initials if actually NALA-certified and the designation is accompanied by language indicating the paralegal is not a lawyer.

In practice

The opinion holds that a paralegal's use of the CLA or CLAS credential on firm correspondence is permitted where two conditions are met: the paralegal actually holds the NALA certification, and the designation appears alongside language making clear the paralegal is not a lawyer. The opinion ties the result to Rules 7.1 and 7.7, treating an accurate, properly qualified credential as a communication that is not false or misleading.

Common questions

Q: Can a paralegal put CLA or CLAS after their name on firm letterhead?

A: The opinion concluded a paralegal may use CLA or CLAS on legal correspondence if actually certified by the National Association of Legal Assistants and the designation is accompanied by language indicating the paralegal is not a lawyer.

Q: Why is the qualifying "not a lawyer" language required?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 7.7 bars letterhead designations that violate Rule 7.1's prohibition on false or misleading communications; the "not a lawyer" language prevents the credential from misleading the reader (relying on Opinion No. 93).

Q: Does the same logic let lawyers list their own certifications?

A: The opinion noted that Rule 7.6, as amended, lets a lawyer communicate a certification, but if it is from a non-ABA-accredited organization the lawyer must disclose that and that Mississippi has no procedure for approving such organizations.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 7.7 (firm names and letterheads) and 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), and discusses amended Rule 7.6 (communicating fields of certification). Rules 7.1 and 7.5 (firm names) correspond to the same-numbered Model Rules; Mississippi's letterhead provisions were then carried in Rule 7.7. It reads these against the First Amendment commercial-speech holdings in Peel and Ibanez.

Citations and references

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

• MRPC 7.1 (false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair communications) (cf. Model Rule 7.1)
• MRPC 7.7 (firm names and letterheads) (cf. Model Rule 7.5)
• MRPC 7.6 (communicating fields of certification or designation)

Cases:

• Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990), First Amendment protects a truthful statement of certification by a bona fide organization on a lawyer's letterhead
• Ibanez v. Florida Dep't of Business & Professional Regulation, 512 U.S. 136 (1994), lawyers may state true CPA and certified financial planner credentials on letterhead

Other opinions cited:

• Mississippi Ethics Opinion No. 93 (a paralegal's name may appear on letterhead with language stating the paralegal is not a lawyer)

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 252: Law Firm Websites
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 48: Old Firm Name After Split
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 237: Interpreters and 1-900 Lines

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/223/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1064/et_op_223-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 223

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED January 19, 1995

AMENDED April 06, 2013

ADVERTISING - LETTERHEAD - PARALEGAL CERTIFICATION - It is proper for an attorney's paralegal to use the initials CLA or CLAS so long as the paralegal has actually been certified by the National Association of Legal Assistants and so long as the designation is accompanied by language indicating that the paralegal is not a lawyer.

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

May an attorney permit a paralegal who has been certified by the National Association of Legal Assistants to use the initials CLA or CLAS on legal correspondence?

In the facts presented, the requesting attorney states that:

non-lawyers who assist lawyers are identifying themselves as 'Certified Legal Assistants' based upon their passage of a test administered by a private organization known as The National Association of Legal Assistants(NALA) and are using the initials CLA or CLAS by their names.

The attorney wants to know if this is permissible under the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).

There are two rules of the MRPC which apply to the question presented. The first is Rule 7.7, Firm Names and Letterheads, which states in pertinent part that:

(a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead, or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1.

The second rule is, of course, Rule 7.1, Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services, which states in part that:

A lawyer shall not make or permit to be made a false, misleading, deceptive or unfair communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication violates this rule if it:

(a) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;

(b) Is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results that violate the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(c) Compares the lawyer's services or fees with other lawyers' services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled on this issue regarding lawyers in two cases.

The first case is Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91, 110 L.Ed 83, 110 S.Ct. 2281 (1990). In Peel, the Court held that it was a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America for the disciplinary authority of the Illinois Bar to censure an attorney for stating on his letterhead that he had been certified a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA). In its opinion, the Court noted that NBTA had a set of standards and procedures for certifying an attorney and that these included the successful completion of a day-long examination. The Court, however, also indicated that a State could screen the certifying organizations to make sure that they were reputable.

In Ibanez v. Fla Dept. of Bus., 512 U.S. 136, 114 S.Ct. 2084 (1994), the Supreme Court held that lawyers could not be prohibited from stating on their letterheads that they are certified public accountants or certified financial planners, so long as the certifications are true. (Again, both of the certifications are based on stringent standards and procedures.)

Thereafter, Rule 7.6 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC") has been amended to provide the following:

A lawyer may communicate the fact that he or she has been certified or designated in a field of law by a named organization or authority, but only if that certification or designation is granted by an organization or authority show specialty certification or designation program is accredited by the American Bar Association. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Rule, a lawyer may communicate the fact that he is certified or designated in a particular field of law by a names, non-American Bar Association organization or authority, but must disclose such fact and further disclose that there is no procedure in Mississippi for approving, certifying, or designating organizations and authorities.

Rule 7.6(b), MRPC, goes on to provide that lawyers who are admitted before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation "patent attorney" and those engaged in admiralty practice may so designate.

With reference to paralegals, the Ethics Committee has previously held that an attorney may list the name of a paralegal on the attorney's letterhead so long as there is language stating that the paralegal is not a lawyer. (Opinion No. 93).

Based on these findings, the Ethics Committee is of the opinion that it is proper for an attorney's paralegal to use the initials CLA or CLAS so long as the paralegal has actually been certified by the National Association of Legal Assistants and so long as the designation is accompanied by language indicating that the paralegal is not a lawyer.