Under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, could a lawyer indicate on stationery that he had been certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy?
Ohio BPC Opinion 87-039: Lawyer Stating NBTA Civil Trial Advocate Certification on Letterhead
Short answer: The Board concluded that a lawyer could not indicate on stationery that he had been certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Under former DR 2-105(A), lawyers were prohibited from holding themselves out as specialists, and former EC 2-13 limited specialty designations to the historically accepted fields of admiralty, trademark, and patent law. The certification statement was implicitly a statement of specialization. The opinion was withdrawn by Board action on December 5, 1997 due to amended DR 2-105 and Gov. Bar R. XIV.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct'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. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Currency note
The Board's status list flags this opinion as Withdrawn by Board action on December 5, 1997 due to amended DR 2-105 and Government of the Bar Rule XIV. The opinion was issued under the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, which was superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007. The constitutional doctrine on lawyer-specialization claims also changed materially after this opinion (see Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990)), which the 1987 opinion does not address. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules (Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.4 and Gov. Bar R. XIV) before acting.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether he could state on his stationery that he had been certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. The Board read former DR 2-105(A) as prohibiting a lawyer from holding himself out publicly as a specialist, and reasoned that indicating the NBTA certification on stationery was implicitly a statement of specialization. The Board cited Pennsylvania Opinion No. 85-171 (1985) for the same posture.
The Board read former EC 2-13 as permitting specialty designations only in the historically accepted fields of admiralty, trademark, and patent law, and concluded that a lawyer should not be permitted to hold himself out as having special training or ability. The Board accordingly held that the NBTA certification could not appear on Ohio lawyer stationery.
Common questions
Q: What was the Board's textual basis for prohibition?
A: Former DR 2-105(A) prohibited a lawyer from holding himself out publicly as a specialist. The Board read indicating the NBTA Civil Trial Advocate certification on stationery as implicitly such a holding-out.
Q: Did the historically accepted fields carve-out apply?
A: No. Former EC 2-13 limited the permitted specialty designations to admiralty, trademark, and patent law. Civil trial advocacy was not within that list.
Q: Why was the opinion withdrawn?
A: The Board's status list states the opinion was withdrawn by Board action on December 5, 1997 due to amended DR 2-105 and Gov. Bar R. XIV. The 1987 opinion does not analyze the post-1997 specialty-certification framework.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former DR 2-105(A), Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
- Former EC 2-13, Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
Other opinions cited:
- Pennsylvania Opinion No. 85-171 (1985): same posture on NBTA-style certifications
See also
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1987-034: Announcement Cards to Non-Clients
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1987-004: Lawyer-to-Lawyer Announcement of Availability
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op-87-039.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 87-039
December 18, 1987
[Withdrawn- by Board on Dec. 5, 1997 due to amended DR 2-105 and Gov. Bar R. XIV]
SYLLABUS: A lawyer may not indicate on his letterhead that he is certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.
OPINION: We have before us your request for our opinion on whether you may indicate on your stationery that you have been certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.
Under the Disciplinary Rules, a lawyer is prohibited from holding himself out publicly as a specialist. Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-105(A). We believe that indicating your certification as Civil Trial Advocate on your stationery is implicitly a statement of specialization. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Opinion No. 85-171 (1985).
A lawyer may hold himself out as a specialist in the historically accepted fields of admiralty, trademark and patent law. Code of Professional Responsibility EC 2-13. However, a lawyer should not be permitted to hold himself out as having special training or ability. Id.
In conclusion, it is our opinion, and you are so advised, that a lawyer in Ohio may not indicate on his stationery that he is certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion, based upon the facts as presented and limited to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
James W. Mason, Esq.
Secretary, Board of Commissioners
on Grievances and Discipline,