Can a New Jersey lawyer state on the letterhead that he is admitted to practice before particular federal courts, like the U.S. Tax Court?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked whether he could show on his letterhead that he is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court and the United States District Court for Puerto Rico, noting that each court has admission qualifications he had met. The Committee saw no objection to stating those admissions.

It tied that conclusion to Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, which held that lawyers may advertise and which, in the Committee's reading, gives attorneys great latitude in placing their specialties before the public. The Committee also noted that the Supreme Court had, under R. 1:39-7, begun to authorize certification of a lawyer as a "trial attorney" under certain conditions.

The Committee added a note of restraint, quoting Wise, Legal Ethics, to the effect that the more nearly a letterhead conforms to the conventional and ordinary (name, address, telephone number, and the like), the safer its use. That observation framed the holding rather than limiting it: the stated court admissions were permissible.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. It applied the post-Bates advertising framework and R. 1:39-7 (attorney certification); in current New Jersey terms the letterhead rule corresponds to RPC 7.5 and the fields-of-practice and certification rules to RPC 7.4. The law of lawyer advertising and the certification rules changed after this opinion. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 list federal-court admissions on the letterhead?

A: Yes. The opinion saw no objection to stating admission to the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico, where the lawyer met those courts' admission requirements.

Q: What supported the conclusion?

A: The opinion read Bates v. State Bar of Arizona as giving attorneys great latitude to place their specialties before the public, and noted the Supreme Court's certification of "trial attorney" status under R. 1:39-7.

Q: Did the opinion add any caution?

A: It quoted a treatise observing that letterheads conforming to the conventional and ordinary are the safer course, but it permitted the stated admissions.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the post-Bates advertising framework and noted the Supreme Court's R. 1:39-7 certification of "trial attorney." In current New Jersey terms, the letterhead rule corresponds to RPC 7.5 and the fields-of-practice and certification communication rules to RPC 7.4. The holding was that truthful statements of court admissions the lawyer has actually earned may appear on the letterhead.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• MR 7.4 / NJ RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and certification)

Court rules:

• R. 1:39-7 (certification of attorneys; "trial attorney")

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 447: Putting "C.P.A." on a Lawyer's Letterhead
• NJ ACPE Op. 453: Listing CPA and "Financial" in a Phone Directory

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp442-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

104 N.J.L.J. 531, December 20, 1979

OPINION 442

Letterhead - Stating Various Admissions

An attorney asks whether he may properly show on his letterhead that he is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court and the United States District Court for Puerto Rico. He states that each court has certain qualifications for admission to practice before it and that he has met these requirements. We see no objection to his stating that he is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court and the United States District Court for Puerto Rico. With the holding in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 53 L. Ed. 2d, 810, (1977), that lawyers may advertise, attorneys are permitted great latitude in placing before the public their specialties.

Our Supreme Court under R. 1:39-7 has now authorized under certain conditions a lawyer to be certified as "trial attorney." However, it may not be amiss with respect to the information on lawyers' letterheads to quote from Wise, Legal Ethics, 145 (2d ed.): As a safe general rule, the more nearly the letterhead conforms to the conventional, the customary, the usual and the ordinary, the safer its use. The usual letterhead, of course, is in quite good taste, with normal modest-sized lettering, giving the name of the individual or firm, the address, the telephone number, and occasionally a cable code number.