May an attorney advertise in the law journal that he will handle tax lien foreclosures for other attorneys as a specialized legal service?

Plain-English summary

An attorney proposed to place an advertisement in the New Jersey Law Journal reading: "Tax Lien Foreclosures. In Rem or Personal. Attorney will handle for other attorneys." The Committee explained that solicitation by advertisement is prohibited by Canon 27, and the only exception is Canon 46, which (in the pre-1956 A.B.A. form New Jersey still followed) permitted a lawyer rendering a specialized legal service directly and only to other lawyers to publish a brief, dignified notice in legal periodicals. The Committee noted that A.B.A. Canon 46 was amended in 1956 but that the New Jersey Supreme Court had not adopted that revision, so New Jersey remained bound by the earlier text.

The Committee applied the test that any class of work the average lawyer is equipped and willing to handle cannot be a specialty, even if a particular lawyer restricts himself to it and acquires unusual proficiency, because specifying particular types of work carries an inference that unusual ability or experience is asserted. It listed categories the A.B.A. Ethics Committee had construed not to be specialized legal services (as reported in Drinker's Legal Ethics), including New Jersey law and practice, jury trials, bankruptcy and insolvency, income tax matters, and trusts and estates.

In light of those principles, the Committee concluded that tax lien foreclosure work is not a specialized legal service within the meaning of New Jersey Canon 46, and therefore the proposed advertisement was improper. It noted that the New York County Lawyers' Association had construed the original Canon 46 more broadly, but adhered to the principle that New Jersey Canon 46 is to be strictly construed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in April 1967, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It applied Canon 27 (advertising) and the pre-1956 form of Canon 46 (notice of specialized service to other lawyers), a body of restriction later reshaped by Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and its progeny. The subjects are now treated under RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer advertise tax-lien foreclosure work to other attorneys?

A: No. The Committee held tax lien foreclosure work is not a specialized legal service within New Jersey Canon 46, so the proposed advertisement was improper under Canon 27.

Q: Why did New Jersey use the older version of Canon 46?

A: Because the New Jersey Supreme Court had not adopted the 1956 revision of A.B.A. Canon 46, so the Committee was bound by the pre-1956 text and construed it strictly.

Q: What made something a "specialty" under the Canon?

A: The Committee applied the test that any class of work the average lawyer is equipped and willing to handle cannot be a specialty, even if a lawyer restricts himself to it and becomes especially proficient.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 27 (the general bar on advertising) and Canon 46, which created a narrow exception for a brief, dignified notice of a specialized legal service offered only to other lawyers. New Jersey followed the pre-1956 A.B.A. text and construed it strictly. In current New Jersey terms, the subject maps to RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization).

Citations and references

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27 (advertising) and Canon 46 (notice of specialized service to lawyers), pre-1956 form
• Drinker, Legal Ethics 295 (1961): categories construed not to be specialized legal services
• A.B.A. Opinions 145 (1935) and 194 (1939): strict construction of Canon 46

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 109: A Retiring Lawyer's Announcement to Clients
• NJ ACPE Op. 148: Television Show with Questions and Answers

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp107-1.html

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative. The official mirror text drops the citation lead-in before the "professional cards" quotation below; the gap is left as it appears in the source.

90 N.J.L.J. 245
April 20, 1967

OPINION 107

Advertising
Specialized Legal Services

An attorney proposes to place the following advertisement in the New Jersey Law Journal: Tax Lien Foreclosures. In Rem or Personal. Attorney will handle for other attorneys.

Solicitation by advertisement is prohibited by Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27, and the only exception to this general rule is found in Canon 46. That ABA canon formerly read:

Where a lawyer is engaged in rendering a specialized legal service directly and only to other lawyers, a brief, dignified notice of that fact, couched in language indicating that it is addressed to lawyers, inserted in legal periodicals and like publications when it will afford convenient and beneficial information to lawyers desiring to obtain such services is not improper.

In February 1956, ABA Canon 46 was amended to read:

A lawyer available to act as an associate of other lawyers in a particular branch of the law or legal service may send to local lawyers only and publish in his local legal journal a brief and dignified announcement of his availability to serve other lawyers in connection therewith. The announcement should be in a form which does not constitute a statement or representation of special experience or expertness.

professional cards, sets forth a clearer test:

Any class of work which the average lawyer is equipped and willing to handle cannot be said to be a specialty despite the fact that a lawyer may restrict himself to such a class of work and acquire an unusual degree of proficiency and experience in handling the same. Any specification of particular types of work necessarily carries an inference that unusual ability or experience is asserted and consequently noticed or advertised.

In Drinker, Legal Ethics 295 (1961), the author reports heretofore unreported ABA decisions pertaining to Canon 46 construing the following not to be specialized legal services: Law and practice of New Jersey, jury trials, arguing cases in the Supreme Court, consultant on Florida law, bankruptcy and insolvency law and business reorganizations, income tax matters, federal taxation and trusts and estates.

In the light of the general principles cited above and the particular branches of the law which have been construed not to be specialized legal services by the ABA Ethics Committee, it is our opinion that tax lien foreclosure work is not a specialized legal service within the meaning of N.J. Canon 46 and, therefore, that the proposed advertisement is improper.

As a point of interest, the New York County Lawyers Ass'n., Committee on Professional Ethics has construed the original ABA Canon 46 more broadly than has the ABA Committee (see N.Y. County Opinion 451 and 451A (1956)), but this Committee adheres to the principle that N.J. Canon 46 is to be strictly construed. See ABA Opinions 145 (1935), 194 (1939).