Can a New York lawyer who is also a CPA say so on the firm letterhead and professional cards?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer could state on a letterhead and professional card that he is licensed as a certified public accountant. It answered yes.

The opinion read the recently amended DR 2-102 together with DR 2-101. DR 2-102 permitted professional cards and letterheads that do not violate any statute or court rule and that conform to DR 2-101. As the committee had explained in N.Y. State 487 (1978), the post-Bates version of DR 2-101 generally permits truthful information relevant to the selection of appropriate counsel; it forbids puffery and self-laudation but expressly allows a lawyer to state his education, degrees and other scholastic distinctions as well as memberships in professional societies. Measured against those provisions, the committee concluded that an accurate statement that the lawyer is licensed as a certified public accountant is permissible. The opinion overruled in part N.Y. State 22, 128, 200, and 206 to the extent they held otherwise. 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 (lawyer communications and advertising are now governed chiefly by Rule 7.1, and letterheads and firm names by Rule 7.5). It also rests on the wave of rule changes that followed Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 who is also a CPA put that on the firm letterhead in New York?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held that an accurate statement that the lawyer is licensed as a CPA is permissible information about the lawyer's credentials.

Q: Why was this allowed in 1978 when it had not been before?

A: The opinion overruled earlier opinions (N.Y. State 22, 128, 200, 206 in part) because the post-Bates revisions to DR 2-101 let lawyers state truthful, verifiable credentials relevant to selecting counsel.

Q: Are there limits on how the credential is stated?

A: Yes. The committee tied the result to DR 2-101's bar on puffery and self-laudation, so the statement must be accurate and not misleading.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets DR 2-102 (professional cards and letterheads) and DR 2-101 (advertising and publicity), both as amended after Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. The current Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• NY DR 2-101, DR 2-102

Cases:

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

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 487 (1978): post-Bates advertising of areas of practice and experience
• N.Y. State 22, 128, 200, 206: overruled in part

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 487: Advertising areas of practice and experience
• NY State Bar Op. 488: Listing academic degrees without puffery
• 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-494/