Can a lawyer who writes a legal column for a business publication be identified by name and as a member of his law firm?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer asked whether one or more members of a law firm could write a column about legal matters for a New Jersey business publication of general circulation, identified personally and as members of the firm. The Committee noted that its earlier opinions had restricted such bylines: Opinion 122 limited the author to the attorney's name without picture or office address, Opinion 245 prohibited a firm name on a negligence booklet, and Opinion 257 restricted the identification to the author's name and the fact that he is a New Jersey lawyer.

The Committee observed that all of those opinions predated Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which laid down new rules on advertising and its permissible bounds. In view of those developments, the Committee concluded that the author should be able to identify himself as a member of a law firm, and to the extent Opinions 122, 245, and 257 held to the contrary, it modified and overruled them to permit use of a firm name.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, 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 modified and overruled Opinions 122, 245, and 257. The rules it applied now correspond broadly to RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.5. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer's legal column show his firm name?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that, after Bates, the author may identify himself as a member of his law firm.

Q: What earlier opinions did this change?

A: It modified and overruled Opinions 122, 245, and 257, to the extent they barred using the firm name in such a byline.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the advertising and firm-identification principles then governing New Jersey lawyers, reconsidered in light of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. In current New Jersey terms the analysis maps onto RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). The Committee treated the post-Bates loosening of advertising limits as permitting a firm-name byline that earlier opinions had forbidden.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.5 / NJ RPC 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1977)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 122, 90 N.J.L.J. 849 (1967) (modified and overruled)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 245, 95 N.J.L.J. 1151 (1972) (modified and overruled)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 257, 96 N.J.L.J. 759 (1973) (modified and overruled)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 480: Lawyer Participation in Media Call-In Programs
• NJ ACPE Op. 482: Advertising Borrowed Expertise on Assistance Programs
• NJ ACPE Op. 479: Continuing a Firm Name After the Named Lawyer's Death

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp477-1.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.

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.