Can a lawyer list the areas of practice he concentrates in, such as in a Martindale-Hubbell directory entry, without improperly claiming to be a specialist?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether, in a Martindale-Hubbell directory entry, he could list (along with biographical information) the limited areas of practice to which he devotes a significant portion of his time, given the rules limiting a lawyer's ability to claim a specialty.

The opinion reviews the relevant advertising rules. Rule 7.6(a) allows a lawyer to communicate certification or designation in a field of law by a named organization, but only if that program is ABA-accredited, or, if the organization is not ABA-accredited, the lawyer must disclose that and that Mississippi has no procedure for approving such certifying organizations. Rule 7.1 bars false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair communications about the lawyer's services. Rule 7.2(f) lists information presumed not to violate Rule 7.1, and Rule 7.2(g) specifically allows including a lawyer's or firm's name and traditionally included information in law lists and directories intended primarily for the legal profession.

The opinion concludes that so long as the listings of fields of concentration are not materially false, deceptive, or misleading, and the lawyer or firm does not claim to be a specialist except as Rule 7.6 permits, no ethical impropriety results.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer may list the practice areas in which he or she concentrates in a legal directory. The two limits the opinion identifies are that the listing must not be materially false, deceptive, or misleading under Rule 7.1, and that it must not assert a specialist claim except as Rule 7.6 allows. Listing fields of concentration is treated as the kind of information directories traditionally carry under Rule 7.2(g).

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer list practice areas in a Martindale-Hubbell entry?

A: Per this opinion, yes, so long as the listing is not materially false, deceptive, or misleading and does not improperly claim specialist status.

Q: Can the lawyer call himself a specialist in the directory?

A: Only as Rule 7.6 permits. The opinion concludes a lawyer may not otherwise claim to be a specialist.

Q: What rule covers directory listings specifically?

A: The opinion points to Rule 7.2(g), which allows including a lawyer's or firm's name and traditionally included information in law lists and directories intended primarily for the legal profession.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services, the analog of Model Rule 7.1) and Rule 7.2 (advertising, Model Rule 7.2), specifically Rule 7.2(f) and (g) on presumptively permissible information and directory listings. It reads these together with Rule 7.6, the Mississippi rule on communicating certification or designation in a field of law (the specialty-claim rule corresponding in subject to Model Rule 7.4).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Mississippi Rule 7.1: no false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair communication about a lawyer's services.
• Model Rule 7.2 / Mississippi Rule 7.2: advertising, including Rule 7.2(f) (information presumed not to violate Rule 7.1) and Rule 7.2(g) (law lists and directories).
• Mississippi Rule 7.6 (specialty certification or designation; corresponds in subject to Model Rule 7.4).

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 113: Other Professional Licensure on a Lawyer's Letterhead
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 139: M.D./J.D. Designations on Letterhead
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 252: Law Firm Websites and Advertising Submission

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/97/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1102/et_op_97-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 97

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED June 07, 1984

AMENDED April 06, 2013

ADVERTISING - listings in legal directories

The Ethics Committee of The Mississippi Bar has been asked to render an opinion on the propriety of an attorney indicating in a legal directory, in addition to biographical information, limited areas of practice to which a significant portion of time is devoted by the attorney. The legal directory involved is Martindale-Hubbell Legal Directory. The requester asks whether such listings would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) which limit an attorney's ability to specialize in a particular area.

Rule 7.6(a), MRPC, provides that 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 whose specialty certification or designation program is accredited by the American Bar Association. However, a lawyer may communicate that fact that he is certified or designated in a particular field of law by a named, 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 organization and authorities.

Rule 7.1, MRPC, provides 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. Rule 7.2(f), MRPC, lists the information that is presumed not to violate the provision of Rule 7.1. Rule 7.2(g), MRPC, specifically allows the inclusion of the name of a lawyer or law firm in law lists and law directories intended primarily for the use of the legal profession of such information as has traditionally be included in these publications.

The committee is of the opinion that so long as the listings of areas or fields of law in which the lawyer or firm concentrates are not materially false, deceptive or misleading and so long as the attorney or firm does not claim to be a specialist, except as permitted under Rule 7.6, MRPC, then no ethical impropriety would result.