Can a lawyer with no experience in a field advertise his availability for conferences by relying on an associated out-of-state attorney's expertise?

Plain-English summary

A New Jersey attorney with no past experience in federal or state financial-assistance programs for businesses and small municipalities wished to associate with a Washington, D.C. attorney, then living in New Jersey, who had considerable expertise in the field. The inquirer proposed to place paid newspaper advertisements of his availability for exploratory conferences with interested parties about state or federal assistance programs, with the Washington attorney present throughout the conferences to supply expertise.

The Committee applied DR 2-101(A), which bars a lawyer from knowingly making any representation about his ability, background, or experience that is false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive, or that might reasonably induce public reliance. It found that an advertisement by the inquirer, who admittedly had no past experience in the field, was at the least misleading and deceptive and so violated DR 2-101(A).

The Committee added that the advertisement impliedly held the inquirer out as a specialist, in violation of DR 2-105(A), which barred a lawyer from publicly holding himself out as a recognized or certified specialist except as the rule allowed. It concluded the proposed practice was improper and also drew attention to R. 1:21-1(a) governing who may practice law in the state.

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. The rules it applied (DR 2-101 on advertising and DR 2-105 on specialization) now correspond broadly to RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.4. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the lawyer advertise availability in a field he had no experience in?

A: No. The opinion concluded that an advertisement by a lawyer who admittedly had no experience in the field was misleading and deceptive under DR 2-101(A).

Q: Did associating with an experienced out-of-state attorney cure the problem?

A: No. The opinion held the advertisement still impliedly held the inquirer out as a specialist in violation of DR 2-105(A) and remained improper.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101(A), which prohibited false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive representations about a lawyer's ability or experience, and DR 2-105(A), which restricted holding oneself out as a specialist. In current New Jersey terms these map onto RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.4 (fields of practice and specialization). The Committee also pointed to R. 1:21-1(a) on authorization to practice law.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services); decided under former DR 2-101(A)
• MR 7.4 / NJ RPC 7.4 (specialization); decided under former DR 2-105(A)

Court rules:

• R. 1:21-1(a) (who may practice law in New Jersey)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 488: Furnishing Fee Information to a Group Legal-Services Plan
• NJ ACPE Op. 481: Lawyer Referral Service for Real-Estate Clients
• NJ ACPE Op. 503: Advertising Specialization and Reduced Fees

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp482-1.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.

107 N.J.L.J. 525, June 11, 1981

OPINION 482

Association with D.C. Attorney re Federal and State Assistance Programs - Advertising Availability for Conferences

A New Jersey attorney with no past experience in the area of federal or state financial assistance programs for businesses and small municipalities, wishes to associate himself with a Washington D.C. attorney, now living in New Jersey, who has considerable expertise in the field. The inquirer wishes to place a paid advertisement in local newspapers advertising his availability for exploratory conferences with interested parties or their legal and financial representatives concerning state or federal assistance programs. It is contemplated that the Washington attorney would make himself available and be present throughout the conferences with the clients in order to assist in the proper conduct of the conference and to lend his expertise, advice and assistance.

DR 2-101, Publicity and Advertising provides: (A) A lawyer shall not knowingly make any representation about his ability, background, or experience, or that of the lawyer's partner or associate, or about the fee or any other aspect of a proposed professional engagement, that is false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive, or that might reasonably be expected to induce reliance by a member of the public.

It is clear that the advertisement by the inquirer who admittedly has no past experience in the field is at the least misleading and deceptive, and violative of DR 2-101(A). In addition, the advertisement impliedly holds the inquirer out as a specialist in violation of DR 2-105(A) which provides in part: A lawyer shall not hold himself out publicly as, or imply that he is, a recognized or certified specialist, except as follows... .

For the foregoing reasons, the practice as proposed is improper. Attention is also drawn to R. 1:21-1(a) which concerns who may practice law in this State.