May a New Jersey firm run a 'specialized legal services' announcement in a law journal advertising itself as New Jersey trial counsel for tort, contract, and product liability work?

Plain-English summary

A New Jersey firm wished to insert an announcement in the New York Law Journal, under the heading "Specialized legal services," reading: "New Jersey Trial Counsel, Tort, Contract and Product Liability." The question was whether Canon 46 permitted the announcement.

The Committee set out Canon 46, which allowed a lawyer rendering a specialized legal service directly and only to other lawyers to place a brief, dignified notice of that fact, in language addressed to lawyers, in legal periodicals where it would give convenient and beneficial information to lawyers seeking the service. It noted that ABA Opinion 194 (1939) held Canon 46 should be strictly construed and listed the Canon's explicit requirements: the service must be a specialized legal service within the Canon; the lawyer must render it directly and only to other lawyers; the notice must be addressed only to lawyers or placed in legal periodicals; and the notice must be confined to a brief dignified statement that the lawyer renders such service.

The Committee then addressed whether trial counsel is a specialty within the Canons. It reasoned that any attorney admitted to practice is eligible to try cases in all New Jersey courts, that practitioners skilled in trial work are sent matters by attorneys who lack the inclination or temperament for it, and that a lawyer's reputation for trial skill becomes recognized by the profession without any insertion in a legal periodical to herald it. Although the Committee acknowledged that Drinker mentions trial counsel is treated as a specialty in some jurisdictions, it concluded that the work of trial counsel should not be considered a specialized legal service within the Canons, and it deemed the announcement improper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in April 1966, 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 46 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on notices of specialized legal service to other lawyers. Lawyer advertising and the communication of fields of practice are now treated under RPC 7.1 to 7.4, and constitutional limits on advertising restrictions changed substantially after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). 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 a firm advertise itself as New Jersey trial counsel in a law journal?

A: No. The Committee deemed the announcement improper, holding that the work of trial counsel was not a specialized legal service within Canon 46.

Q: Why was trial work not treated as a Canon 46 specialty?

A: The Committee reasoned that any admitted attorney is eligible to try cases, and that a lawyer's reputation for trial skill becomes recognized by the bar without any published notice, so no legal-periodical insertion was needed to announce it.

Q: What did Canon 46 actually allow?

A: Per the opinion, Canon 46 allowed only a brief, dignified notice that a lawyer rendered a specialized legal service directly and only to other lawyers, addressed to lawyers and placed in legal periodicals, and the Committee noted ABA Opinion 194 held the Canon should be strictly construed.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Canon 46 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which narrowly permitted a notice of specialized legal service rendered directly and only to other lawyers, as strictly construed in ABA Opinion 194 (1939). The Committee held that trial counsel work did not qualify as such a specialty. In current New Jersey terms, lawyer advertising and statements of practice areas are governed by RPC 7.1 through 7.4.

Citations and references

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 46 (notice of specialized legal service to lawyers)
• Drinker, Legal Ethics 236 (1953)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 194 (1939): Canon 46 is to be strictly construed

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 107: Advertising Specialized Legal Services in Tax-Lien Work
• NJ ACPE Op. 184: An Announcement of a Securities-Law and Corporate Practice
• NJ ACPE Op. 283: Announcing Availability to Lawyers as a Specialized Consultant

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp92-1.html

Original opinion text

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

89 N.J.L.J. 248
April 21, 1966

OPINION 92

Trial Counsel as Specialized Service

A firm of attorneys in New Jersey desires to insert an announcement in the New York Law Journal under the heading of "Specialized legal services" as follows: New Jersey Trial Counsel, Tort, Contract and Product Liability.

The ethical question propounded is whether such an announcement is permitted by Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 46.

Canon 46 provides as follows:

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 service, is not improper.

In ABA Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances, Opinion 194 (1939) it was held that Canon 46 should be strictly construed. To quote from the opinion:

The following requirements of the Canon are explicit: (1) the notice can only relate to a service constituting a specialized legal service within the meaning of the Canon; (2) the lawyer must be engaged in rendering such service directly and only to other lawyers; (3) the notice can be addressed only to other lawyers or inserted in legal periodicals and like publications when it will afford convenient and beneficial information to lawyers desiring to obtain such service; and (4) the communication or publication must confine itself to a "brief dignified notice" that the lawyer is engaged in rendering such service.

The question arises whether trial counsel is a specialty within the contemplation of the Canons.

Any attorney admitted to practice is eligible to try cases in all our courts. Those practitioners who exhibit skill in this field are forwarded matters by attorneys who do not have the inclination or the temperament to engage in trial work. Reputation as to their skill and ability becomes recognized by the members of our profession and no insertion in a legal periodical is required to herald their proficiency in this field.

We are cognizant that Drinker in his excellent work on legal ethics mentions that in some jurisdictions trial counsel is a specialty. Drinker, Legal Ethics 236 (1953). However, it does not appear that the work of trial counsel should be considered a specialized legal service within the confines of the Canons and hence we deem the announcement to be improper.