Can a New York lawyer advertise years of experience in a particular area of practice?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer could advertise a specified number of years of experience representing licensees, applicants, and various alcohol-beverage agencies and judicial review. It answered yes, subject to careful drafting.

This opinion is the committee's foundational treatment of the post-Bates advertising rules, and later opinions repeatedly cite it. Following Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, each Department of the Appellate Division adopted uniform advertising rules and approved their incorporation into the Code as a revised DR 2-101, with conforming amendments to other Canon 2 Disciplinary Rules and Ethical Considerations. The committee explained that the Code now permits advertising of information relevant to lawyer selection or bearing on competence. The principal limits are in DR 2-101(A) and (B), which bar statements that are false, deceptive, or misleading, or that contain puffery, self-laudation, quality claims, or claims that cannot be measured or verified; DR 2-101(D) requires advertising to educate the public and provide information relevant to selecting appropriate counsel.

Applying those provisions, the committee concluded that a truthful, non-deceptive statement of a specified number of years of experience in an accurately identified practice area is proper, because the information can be measured or verified and is relevant to selecting counsel (DR 2-101(B), (D); DR 2-105(A) on identifying areas of practice). It cautioned that a representation of "experience" without qualification implies experience that was frequent rather than occasional and substantial rather than casual, so the claim is proper only if the lawyer's experience was in fact frequent and substantial. The committee noted the Code still reserves the term "specialist" for lawyers certified by the authority having jurisdiction (DR 2-105(B)), which had not yet established certification standards, and accepted the risk that some readers might confuse "experience" with "specialist." Finally, invoking EC 2-10's call for special care, it warned that even slight ambiguity may mislead, using the example that an unsophisticated reader might think the advertised lawyer represented the agencies themselves rather than parties before them; a simple rewording would cure it. The question was answered in the affirmative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1978, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (advertising and communications are now governed chiefly by Rule 7.1, advertising procedures by Rule 7.2, and statements of fields of practice and specialization by Rule 7.4). It rests directly on the post-Bates revisions to Canon 2. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. 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: Can a lawyer advertise how many years of experience he has in a field?

A: Under this opinion, yes. A truthful statement of years of experience in an accurately identified practice area is proper because it is verifiable and relevant to selecting counsel.

Q: Is there a condition on claiming experience?

A: Yes. The committee held that "experience" without qualification implies frequent and substantial experience, so the claim is proper only if the lawyer's experience was in fact frequent and substantial in that area.

Q: Could the lawyer call himself a specialist?

A: Not at the time. The Code reserved "specialist" for lawyers certified by the authority having jurisdiction over specialization, and no certification standards had yet been established.

Q: What drafting caution did the committee give?

A: That even slight ambiguity may mislead. It noted a reader might wrongly think the lawyer represented the agencies rather than parties before them, and said a simple rewording would cure the ambiguity (EC 2-10).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the post-Bates DR 2-101 (advertising content and procedures), DR 2-100(A) (advertising violative of statute or rule), DR 2-103(A) (solicitation), DR 2-105(A) and (B) (identifying areas of practice and the term "specialist"), and EC 2-10 (special care in advertising). The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), Rule 7.2 (advertising), and Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.2 (advertising)
• MR 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization)
• NY EC 2-10; DR 2-100(A), DR 2-101, DR 2-103(A), DR 2-105(A), (B)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), striking categorical bans on lawyer advertising

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 488: Listing both an LL.B. and a substituted J.D.
• NY State Bar Op. 494: Stating a CPA license on letterhead
• NY State Bar Op. 493: Running a law office and a real estate brokerage together
• NY State Bar Op. 500: Listing patent agents and paralegals on letterhead

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-487/