Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NVBAR
NVBAR October 8, 1993

Can a lawyer list on letterhead other states where the lawyer is admitted but on inactive status?

Short answer: The Committee concluded that a lawyer may list on letterhead the states where the lawyer is admitted but currently inactive only if the listing is qualified to indicate the inactive status, such as an asterisk beside each inactive state, so the letterhead is not potentially misleading under SCR 195 and 196.5.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1993
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether the lawyer could list on office letterhead the states where the lawyer had been admitted but was currently an inactive member of that state's bar. The Committee drew heavily on its earlier Formal Opinion No. 13 (which addressed listing a private bankruptcy-specialist certification on letterhead), treating the two questions as analogous because both turn on whether the letterhead is potentially misleading and therefore subject to state regulation.

The Committee explained that SCR 195 (identical to Model Rule 7.1) bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, and that SCR 196.5 separately prohibits factual statements in written communications that are "potentially false or misleading." Reviewing In re R.M.J. and Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, the Committee noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed states to regulate potentially misleading attorney communications through measures short of a total ban, such as disclaimers.

Applying that framework, the Committee reasoned that the states in which a lawyer is licensed are a "qualification" much like a certification, and that listing inactive memberships without explanation carries a significant potential for confusing the public about where the lawyer can actually practice. It concluded the State could intervene with a modest requirement: a lawyer who lists inactive-status jurisdictions must qualify the listing, for instance by placing an asterisk beside each inactive state, which informs the public where the lawyer has been admitted without the potential deception of an unqualified list.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before Nevada's 2006 adoption of the current Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (the renumbered Rules 1.0 et seq. that replaced the former Supreme Court Rules) and the related Ethics 2000-based revisions. The false-or-misleading-communications rule is now Rule 7.1, and the detailed advertising provisions of former SCR 196.5 have been restructured. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer show other-state bar admissions on letterhead if those memberships are inactive?

A: Yes, but only with a qualification. The opinion concluded the lawyer must flag the inactive status (for example, an asterisk by each inactive state) so the listing is not potentially misleading under SCR 195 and 196.5.

Q: Why does inactive status have to be disclosed?

A: Per the opinion, the states where a lawyer is licensed are a qualification like a certification, and an unqualified list of inactive memberships has significant potential to confuse the public about where the lawyer can actually practice.

Q: Could the State ban such listings entirely?

A: No. The opinion, following Peel, treated the listing as only potentially misleading, which the State may address through a less restrictive measure like a disclaimer rather than a total ban.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former SCR 195 (false or misleading communications, identical to Model Rule 7.1) and former SCR 196.5 (the bar on potentially false or misleading written communications), reading them against the commercial-speech decisions In re R.M.J. and Peel and the Committee's own Formal Opinion No. 13.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Model Rule 7.1 / former Nev. SCR 195 (false or misleading communications)
  • Former Nev. SCR 196.5 (potentially false or misleading written communications)

Cases:

  • Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990) (potentially misleading certification listing addressed by disclaimer, not ban)
  • In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982) (limits on regulating attorney advertising)

Other opinions cited:

  • State Bar of Nevada Formal Opinion No. 13 (listing a private specialist certification on letterhead)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1993 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.