Can a lawyer's letterhead state a former judgeship and note that a lawyer is also admitted to practice in another state?
NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 637: Former judicial office and other admissions on letterhead
Short answer: The opinion concluded that a lawyer may state a former judicial office and may note the additional jurisdictions in which the lawyer is admitted on letterhead and professional cards, provided the statements are truthful and not misleading, overruling the older opinions that had barred listing a former judgeship.
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
Two lawyers asked related letterhead questions: whether a firm could describe a member who is a retired Supreme Court Justice as a "Retired Justice of the Supreme Court," and whether a New York firm could note on its letterhead and cards that certain lawyers are also admitted in another state.
The committee treated letterheads and cards as a form of advertising governed by DR 2-102(A) and DR 2-101. The governing standard is that the information must not be false, deceptive, or misleading, and may not amount to puffery or self-laudation (DR 2-101(A), (B)); the Code's list of expressly permitted items is not exclusive, because DR 2-101(D) allows other information that educates the public and helps in selecting counsel. On the former-judge question, the committee overruled N.Y. State 200 (1971) and N.Y. State 284 (1973) (which rested on the restrictive pre-Bates version of the rule), explaining that DR 2-101(C)(1) now expressly allows disseminating public offices held. It cautioned that "Retired Justice of the Supreme Court" without clarifying that the court is New York's could mislead, and that DR 9-101(C) bars stating or implying an ability to improperly influence a tribunal, though the mere listing of a former judgeship would not ordinarily create that inference.
On the second question, the committee held that a lawyer admitted in another state may say so, because DR 2-101(C)(1) permits listing "dates of admission to any bar" and there is nothing inherently misleading in truthfully identifying jurisdictions of admission. The committee acknowledged a prospective client might overweight multiple admissions, but said that does not make truthful information misleading, declining to follow contrary pre-Bates ABA informal opinions. It noted in a footnote that listing a lawyer who is not admitted in the office's jurisdiction requires a clear statement of the lawyer's jurisdictional limitations (DR 2-102(D)).
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, under New York's former Code of Professional Responsibility, which New York replaced with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009. The provisions on advertising and letterheads have since been recast in Rules 7.1 and 7.5. 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's letterhead say the lawyer is a retired judge?
A: Yes, if truthful and not misleading. The committee overruled its older opinions and held that DR 2-101(C)(1) permits listing public offices held, cautioning that the description should make clear which court and must not imply an ability to influence a tribunal (DR 9-101(C)).
Q: Can a New York firm note that a lawyer is also admitted in another state?
A: Yes. The committee held that DR 2-101(C)(1) permits listing bar admissions, and truthfully identifying jurisdictions of admission is not inherently misleading.
Q: Does it matter that a client might be impressed by multiple admissions?
A: No. The committee said the possibility a client overweights multiple admissions does not render otherwise truthful information misleading.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted New York's former Code: DR 2-102 (professional notices, letterheads, and cards), DR 2-101 (regulation of advertising, including the false-or-misleading standard), and DR 9-101(C) (not implying improper influence). It situated the analysis against Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and the post-Bates 1978 revisions to the Code. The closest Model Rule analogues are Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). New York replaced the Code with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009; the provisions cited here are historical.
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, DR 9-101(C)
Cases:
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977): First Amendment protection for lawyer advertising
- von Wiegen v. Committee on Professional Standards, 63 N.Y.2d 163 (1984): regulation of misleading lawyer communications
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. State 200 (1971) and N.Y. State 284 (1973): overruled in part
- N.Y. State 434 (1976) and N.Y. State 487 (1978): truthful listing of admissions and post-Bates changes
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 640: Paralegal job titles on cards and letterhead
- NY State Bar Op. 636: Selling standard will forms to the public; trade names
- NY State Bar Op. 642: The advocate-witness rule in arbitration
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-637/