Can a New York lawyer advertise being listed in 'Best Lawyers' without violating the advertising rules?
NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1007: Advertising a Best Lawyers Listing
Short answer: A lawyer may advertise inclusion in "Best Lawyers" if the lawyer assesses the publication's selection methodology and concludes it is a bona fide professional rating, meaning unbiased, nondiscriminatory, and based on a defensible method.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer expecting to be listed in "Best Lawyers" worries that advertising the listing might violate Rule 7.1, because it could imply he has better skills or results than other lawyers without objective support, or amount to claiming he is one of the best attorneys. The question is whether advertising the listing is permitted.
The opinion analyzes the listing under Rule 7.1, which bars advertisements that are false, deceptive, or misleading, but allows information about "bona fide professional ratings." Per Comment [13], a rating is bona fide only if it is unbiased and nondiscriminatory, evaluates lawyers on objective criteria or legitimate peer review free of the rating service's economic interests, and fairly considers all lawyers in the claimed pool. The committee concludes that whether the listing qualifies requires a fact-specific look at the publication's methodology.
The opinion describes the "Best Lawyers" peer-review process (open nominations, ballots distributed to currently listed lawyers, a 1-to-5 referral-likelihood scale, no self-voting, reduced weight for same-firm votes, staff review and a sanctions check) and says the committee identified no disqualifying defect, but declines to rule the listing bona fide itself. Instead, per the opinion, the individual lawyer must assess the methodology, weighing factors like the limitation of voters to currently listed lawyers, the automatic re-nomination of prior listees, and the sale of additional marketing materials to listed lawyers.
Finally, the opinion addresses the "comparison" concern. Rule 7.1(d) permits advertising that compares or characterizes the quality of a lawyer's services if factually supportable, but Comment [12] makes advertising oneself as the "Best" improper because it cannot be factually supported. The committee distinguishes a "Best Lawyers" listing: it is a long, unranked list selected by a disclosed methodology, not a claim that a particular lawyer is the best, and the lawyer's determination that the rating is bona fide satisfies the factual-support requirement.
In practice
Under this opinion, and under the New York rule as it stood at the time, a lawyer may advertise a "Best Lawyers" listing, but the permission is conditioned on the lawyer's own assessment that the rating is bona fide: unbiased, nondiscriminatory, and defensible. Per the opinion, the lawyer should evaluate specific methodology features the committee flags, including who votes, the automatic re-nomination of prior listees, and the publication's sale of marketing materials to listed lawyers. The opinion treats the listing as a factual statement of selection rather than a barred superlative, and a footnote notes that if the listing itself violates Rule 7.1, the lawyer would violate the rule by referencing it in marketing.
Common questions
Q: Can a New York lawyer advertise a "Best Lawyers" listing?
A: Yes, under this opinion, provided the lawyer assesses the publication's methodology and concludes it is a bona fide professional rating (conclusion paragraph 8).
Q: What makes a professional rating "bona fide" under Rule 7.1?
A: The opinion applies Comment [13] (paragraph 3): the rating must be unbiased and nondiscriminatory, based on objective criteria or legitimate peer review free of the service's economic interests, and must fairly consider all lawyers in the claimed pool.
Q: Isn't advertising a "Best Lawyers" listing the same as claiming to be the "Best"?
A: No. The opinion distinguishes them (paragraphs 6 to 7): advertising oneself as the "Best" cannot be factually supported and is improper, but a "Best Lawyers" listing is an unranked selection by a disclosed methodology, and a determination that the rating is bona fide supplies the required factual support.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1), which prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, permits information about bona fide professional ratings under Rule 7.1(b), permits factually supportable comparisons and quality characterizations under Rule 7.1(d), and is elaborated by Comments [12] and [13]. The committee builds on its prior opinion N.Y. State 877, which held a rating must be unbiased, nondiscriminatory, and based on a defensible method.
The analysis turns on the fact-specific question of whether the publication's selection methodology meets the bona fide standard, a judgment the opinion assigns to the individual lawyer.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- New York RPC 7.1 (advertising; bona fide professional ratings; comparisons) / Model Rule 7.1
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 877 (2011): a rating must be unbiased, nondiscriminatory, and based on a defensible method
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 1009: Press Releases and Tweets in Shareholder Litigation
- NY State Bar Op. 1010: Advertising Second Opinions to Represented Parties
- NY State Bar Op. 1100: Using the Accredited Estate Planner Designation
- NY State Bar Op. 1031: Using "Specialist" in a Nonlawyer Job Title
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1007/