Can a lawyer who is also a farmer advertise legal services in a farming trade magazine using farming experience?

Plain-English summary

The Board addressed whether a lawyer engaged in both the practice of law and farming could place a legal advertisement in a farmers' trade magazine reading "Being a farmer of over 20 years experience, I understand farmers and I understand their problems," and listing the lawyer's general practice areas. The Board began with the constitutional framework for lawyer advertising under Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and the Central Hudson test, then applied three sets of disciplinary rules. Under DR 2-101(A) and (C), an advertisement must not be false or misleading; the Board found that, assuming the 20 years of experience is accurate, the statement is not inherently misleading even if part of it could be read as self-laudatory, because it is supported by the experience.

The Board then considered DR 2-102(E), which bars a lawyer engaged in both law and another profession or business from identifying as a lawyer in any publication connected with the other profession or business. Although placing the ad in a farmers' trade magazine facially appeared to implicate the rule, the Board concluded it was not improper because the proposed advertisement is a legal advertisement intended to generate only legal business, not an advertisement to generate both legal and farming business. The Board noted it had previously commented that DR 2-102(E) is arguably inconsistent with the other advertising rules and should be deleted, but said it lacked authority to decide the rule's constitutionality.

Finally, under DR 2-105(A), which limits holding oneself out as a specialist, the Board concluded that an advertisement factually stating a lawyer's non-legal background is not a holding out as a specialist, and that stating the general areas of the lawyer's practice does not violate the rule. The Board concluded it would not be unethical for the lawyer-farmer to place the proposed advertisement and to include the general areas of law in which the lawyer practices.

Currency note

This opinion issued in 1992 under Ohio's former Code of Professional Responsibility (superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007). The Board's status list also flags it as not current because of subsequent rule amendments to DR 2-101 through DR 2-105. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who also farms advertise legal services in a farming magazine?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The Board concluded a lawyer engaged in both law and farming may place a legal advertisement in a farmers' trade magazine, because the ad is intended to generate only legal business.

Q: Can the ad mention the lawyer's farming background?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that truthfully stating "Being a farmer of over 20 years experience, I understand farmers and I understand their problems" is not misleading and does not hold the lawyer out as a specialist.

Q: Doesn't a rule bar dual-profession lawyers from identifying as lawyers in trade publications?

A: The opinion acknowledged DR 2-102(E) but concluded it did not make the ad improper, because the advertisement seeks only legal business rather than both legal and farming business.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101(A), (B), and (C) (advertising and false-or-misleading communication), DR 2-102(E) (dual-profession identification), and DR 2-105(A) (specialization), within the constitutional framework of Bates and Central Hudson. The analogous Model Rules provisions include MR 7.1 (communications about services) and MR 7.4 (fields of practice and specialization).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Responsibility (Ohio, former):

• DR 2-101(A), (B), (C), advertising and false-or-misleading communication
• DR 2-102(E), dual-profession identification; DR 2-105(A), specialization

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)
• Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982); Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985)

Other opinions cited:

• Ohio Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 88-23 (1988); Op. 90-09 (1990): dual-practice advertising
• Virginia State Bar, Op. 1231 (1989): advertising prior non-legal employment

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1990-009: Lawyer Also Acting as a Realtor
• Ohio BPC Op. 1988-023: Of Counsel and Dual-Profession Letterhead
• Ohio BPC Op. 1988-028: Advertising Cases Not Handled
• Ohio BPC Op. 1989-006: Yellow Pages Fields of Practice Listing

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-92-012.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 92-12
Issued June 19, 1992

[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]

[Not current-subsequent rule amendments to DR 2-101 through 2-105.]

SYLLABUS: A lawyer who is engaged in both the practice of law and farming may place a legal advertisement in a trade magazine for farmers truthfully stating "Being a farmer of over 20 years experience, I understand farmers and I understand their problems," and may include the general areas of law in which the lawyer practices. The proposed advertisement is a legal advertisement intended to generate only legal business, not an advertisement to generate both legal and farming business.

OPINION: A lawyer who is engaged in both the practice of law and farming inquires whether it would be proper to place a legal advertisement in a trade magazine for farmers. The proposed advertisement would read as follows: "Being a farmer of over 20 years experience, I understand farmers and I understand their problems." The lawyer would also like to include the general areas of law in which he or she practices.

A lawyer's advertisement of legal services is protected commercial speech under the First Amendment. See Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383 (1977). The constitutional test applied to lawyer advertising is the four-prong test set forth in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm' of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980): (1) the expression to be regulated must propose a lawful activity and not be misleading; (2) a substantial government interest must be at stake; (3) the regulation must directly advance that substantial governmental interest; and (4) the regulation must be no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. See In re R.M.J. 455 U.S. 191, 203 (1982) and Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 658 (1985). Within this constitutional framework, states may regulate lawyer advertising.

There are several rules within Ohio's Code of Professional Responsibility that are applicable to the question presented: Disciplinary Rules 2-101 (A), (B) and (C), 2-102 (E), and 2-105. These rules are set forth and discussed below.

First, legal advertisements must not be misleading.

2-101 (A) A lawyer shall not, on behalf of himself, his partner, associate or any other lawyer affiliated with him or his firm, use, or participate in the use of, any form of communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement or claim.

2-101 (C) A communication is false or misleading if it:

(1) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;

(2) Is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Code of Professional Responsibility or other law; or

(3) Is subjectively self-laudatory, or compares a lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.

Assuming that the requester has over 20 years experience as a farmer it does not seem misleading to state "Being a farmer of over 20 years experience, I understand farmers and I understand their problems." It is conceivable that part of the statement regarding understanding farmers and their problems could be perceived as subjectively self-laudatory; however, since it is supported by the 20 years experience in farming, it is not inherently misleading. Thus, it is the Board's opinion that such statement of past experience would not violate Disciplinary Rule 2-101(A) or (C). See also Capoccia v. Comm. on Professional Standards, No. 89-CV-866, l990 Westlaw 211189, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 1990) (statements regarding "fast fair cash compensation" and "smart tough lawyer" are not false, deceptive, or misleading, and may be restricted only in the service of a substantial government interest which the committee failed to demonstrate.)

Second, since the advertisement involves a lawyer engaged in a dual profession, DR 2-102 (E) must be considered.

2-102 (E) A lawyer who is engaged both in the practice of law and another profession or business shall not so indicate on his [her] letterhead, office sign, or professional card, nor shall he [she] identity himself [herself] as a lawyer in any publication in connection with his [her] other profession or business.

The proposed advertisement would be placed in a trade journal for farmers. Disciplinary Rule 2-101(B) permits, with limitations, a lawyer to publish information in written or printed material. However, under DR 2-102(E) an individual engaged in both the practice of law and another profession or business, such as farming, cannot identify himself or herself as a lawyer in any publication in connection with the other profession or business. Although it facially appears improper under DR 2-102(E) to place the proposed advertisement in a trade magazine for farmers, the Board does not consider it improper under the rule since the proposed advertisement is a legal advertisement intended to generate only legal business, not an advertisement to generate both legal and farming business.

In a previous opinion this Board commented that DR 2-102(E) is arguably inconsistent with the other disciplinary rules on advertising and should be deleted from the Ohio's Code of Professional Responsibility. See Ohio SupCt Bd of Comm'rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 88-23 (1988) (addressing dual practice as lawyer and C.P.A.) and Op. 90-09 (1990) (addressing dual practice as lawyer and realtor). As to whether DR 2-102 (E) would pass constitutional muster, this Board is without authority to decide. The Board notes that a Virginia ethics committee found it proper under their rules for a lawyer to advertise in the Virginia State Trooper magazine as to the lawyer's past employment as a police officer as well as his specific areas of practice. Virginia State Bar, Op. 1231 (1989).

Third, current disciplinary rules place limitations on a lawyer advertising as a specialist or as limiting practice.

2-105(A) A lawyer shall not hold himself [herself] out publicly as a specialist or as limiting his [her] practice, except as follows:

(5) A lawyer may state that his [her] practice consists in large part or is limited to a field or fields of law. Except as provided in DR 2-105 (A) (1) and (4). A lawyer may not claim or imply special competence or experience in a field of law through use of the term "specialize" or otherwise.

However, this Board does not consider an advertisement that factually states a lawyer's non-legal background to be a holding out that a lawyer is a specialist in any particular area. Thus, the statement "Being a farmer of over 20 years experience, I understand farmers and I understand their problems" does not violate the disciplinary rules with regard to specialization. Nor, does it violate Disciplinary Rule 2-105 (A) to state the general areas of law in which the lawyer practices.

In conclusion, it is the Board's opinion that it would not be unethical for a lawyer who is engaged in both the practice of law and farming to place a legal advertisement in a trade magazine for farmers truthfully stating "Being a farmer of over 20 years experience, I understand farmers and I understand their problems," and to include the general areas of law in which the lawyer practices. The proposed advertisement is a legal advertisement intended to generate only legal business, not an advertisement to generate both legal and farming business.

Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's Oath of Office.