Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NVBAR
NVBAR February 25, 1994

Can a Nevada lawyer advertise more than three areas of practice?

Short answer: The Committee concluded that SCR 198 prohibits advertising more than three designated fields of practice, and that listing more areas violates the rule unless the listing does not imply special training, skill, or experience and carries an appropriate disclaimer.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. 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 1994
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 Not binding precedent.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 advertise a willingness to accept cases in more than three areas of law. The Committee answered that SCR 198 (Nevada's communication-of-fields-of-practice rule, akin to Model Rule 7.4) prohibits advertising more than three designated fields of practice.

The Committee explained that the concern is the misleading or deceptive nature of listing several fields without a comprehensive disclaimer or words of limitation such as "Practice limited to ..." or "Practicing primarily in ...." SCR 198 imposes continuing-legal-education and annual practice requirements that give some assurance of experience in a listed field, and the rule would be meaningless if any lawyer could imply the same level of concentration simply by dropping the limiting phrase. The Committee suggested disclaimer language stating that the lawyer has not met SCR 198's minimum training and experience requirements for the fields listed.

Reviewing how lawyers used "General Practice" headings in the yellow pages, the Committee distinguished a genuinely definitional, comprehensive listing (which may not be misleading and may be constitutionally permitted under Peel) from a list of only four or five areas under a "General Practice" heading, which it viewed as a misleading attempt to imply areas of concentration in violation of SCR 198. A lawyer who meets SCR 198's requirements in up to three fields but wishes to list more may do so only with an appropriate explanation distinguishing the fields that meet the requirements from those that do not.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, 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 fields-of-practice rule is now Rule 7.4 and the false-or-misleading-communications rule is now Rule 7.1; the three-field cap and specific disclaimer mechanics described reflect the former SCR 198. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or limit mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: How many practice areas could a Nevada lawyer advertise?

A: Per the opinion, SCR 198 prohibited advertising more than three designated fields of practice.

Q: Could a lawyer list more areas under a "General Practice" heading?

A: Only in limited form. The opinion treated a genuinely definitional, comprehensive "General Practice" listing as potentially permissible, but viewed listing just four or five areas under that heading as a misleading attempt to imply concentration in violation of SCR 198.

Q: What if a lawyer wants to list more than three areas where they qualify in only some?

A: The opinion said the lawyer may do so only with an appropriate explanation distinguishing the fields in which the lawyer meets SCR 198's CLE and experience requirements from those in which the lawyer does not.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former SCR 198 (communication of fields of practice, akin to Model Rule 7.4) together with SCR 195 (false or misleading communications, Model Rule 7.1) and SCR 151 (competence). It reads the three-field limit against the commercial-speech framework of Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Model Rule 7.4 / former Nev. SCR 198 (communication of fields of practice)
  • Model Rule 7.1 / former Nev. SCR 195 (false or misleading communications)

Cases:

  • Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990) (non-misleading listings cannot be banned outright)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1994 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.