I want to mail unknown business owners a letter saying my firm 'emphasizes collections and bankruptcies' and 'knows the area inside and out,' with 'Advertisement' marked in the same type size as the body. Does this comply with Rules 7.3 and 7.4?

Plain-English summary

The attorney asked whether she could properly send a letter advertising her legal services to business owners she did not know. In her sample letter, the word "Advertisement" appears in capitals in the upper left corner, in type different from, but the same size as, the largest type used in the body. The letter makes general observations about a business's financial concerns, states that the attorney's firm "emphasizes collections and bankruptcies" and knows the area "inside and out," makes no comparison to any other firm, and closes by inviting the recipient to return an enclosed postcard or call the office.

The panel again noted, as a threshold matter, that it is not equipped to "embark on the task of editing" documents and cannot give general approval to a document as a whole, citing its own Digest of Advisory Opinion 87-3, and it assumed the letter's factual assertions are accurate for purposes of the opinion. Quoting Rule 7.3(b)'s requirements for written communications to prospective clients with no family or prior professional relationship, including the requirement in Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a) that such communications be plainly marked "advertisement" on the envelope and at the top of each page in type one size larger than the largest type used in the communication, the panel held that the word "Advertisement" at the top of the letter and on the envelope must be in type one size larger than the largest type used, since the sample used only the same size. The panel then quoted Rule 7.4, which permits a lawyer to communicate the fields of law the lawyer does or does not practice but bars indicating that the lawyer's practice is limited to or concentrated in particular fields, or implying the lawyer is a specialist, unless the communication also includes Rhode Island's required no-certification disclaimer (subject to narrow exceptions for patent and admiralty practice designations not at issue here). The panel held that because Rule 7.4 expressly prohibits implying specialization, the attorney must include the rule's specified disclaimer, stating that no procedure exists in Rhode Island for the certification or recognition of specialization by lawyers, in order to clearly meet Rule 7.4's requirements and obtain panel protection.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in May 1990, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 7.3 and 7.4 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis, including Rule 7.3's current requirements for written solicitation. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is it enough for the "Advertisement" label to be the same size as the largest type in my mailer?

A: No, according to this opinion. The panel held that Rule 7.3(b)(1)(a) requires the "Advertisement" marking to be in type one size larger than the largest type used in the communication, not merely the same size.

Q: Can I say my firm "emphasizes collections and bankruptcies" and "knows the area inside and out" without violating the specialization rule?

A: The letter's content on this point was not itself the problem; the panel's concern was that Rule 7.4 bars implying the lawyer is a specialist without the rule's required disclaimer, so the fix is adding that disclaimer, not necessarily removing the emphasis language.

Q: What disclaimer does Rule 7.4 require if my ad describes my practice areas?

A: Per the opinion, to obtain panel protection under Rule 7.4 the attorney must include the rule's specified disclaimer stating that no procedure exists in Rhode Island for the certification or recognition of specialization by lawyers.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 7.3(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, governing the marking, filing, and content requirements for written solicitation of prospective clients, and Rule 7.4, governing communications about fields of practice and specialization, to a proposed direct-mail letter to unknown business owners.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.3 (direct contact with prospective clients)
• MR 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization)
• RI RPC 7.3(b), 7.4, as adopted November 15, 1988

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP Digest of Advisory Opinion 87-3, cited for the panel's position that it cannot edit or give general approval to a document as a whole.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 90-15: Rule 7.3 Direct-Mail Ad
• RI EAP Op. 90-10: Rule 7.4 Ad Disclaimer
• ABA Formal Op. 501: Solicitation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2090-18.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #90-18, REQUEST #92
Issued May 31, 1990

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether she can properly send a letter advertising her legal services to business owners she does not know.

The attorney submits a sample copy of the letter she proposes to send. The word "Advertisement" appears in capitals in the upper left hand corner of the letter. The type used is different from the type used in the body of the letter, and is the same size as the largest type used in the body of the letter. The letter first makes some general observations about a business's financial concerns. This is followed by the statement that the attorney's firm "emphasizes collections and bankruptcies" and knows the area "inside and out." The letter does not make any comparisons between the inquiring attorney's firm and any other. The letter closes by inviting its recipient to return an enclosed postcard or to telephone the office. The attorney asks the Panel whether she may properly send this letter under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

As a threshold matter, the Panel is not equipped to "embark on the task of editing" documents, and therefore cannot give general approval to a document as a whole. See, e.g. digest of advisory opinion 87-3. For purposes of rendering this advisory opinion, the Panel assumed that all factual assertions in the letter are accurate. The following Rules of Professional Conduct are applicable to this situation.

Rule 7.3, titled "Direct contact with Prospective Clients" provides that an attorney must comply with the requirements of Rule 7.3(b) when communicating, in writing, with a prospective client. The rule provides exceptions, not applicable here, for situations in which the attorney has either a pre-existing professional relationship with the prospective client or when the communication is part of an effort pro bono publico which will not result in pecuniary gain. Rule 7.3(b) provides:

(1) Written communication to prospective clients with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship are subject to the following requirements:

(a) Such written communications shall be plainly marked "advertisement" on the face of the envelope and at the top of each page of the written communication in type one size larger than the largest type used in the written communication.

(b) A copy of each such written communication shall be sent to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel and another copy shall be retained by the lawyer for three (3) years. If written communications identical in content are sent to two (2) or more prospective clients, the lawyer may comply with this requirement by sending a single copy together with a list of the names and addresses of persons to whom the written communication was sent to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel as well as retaining the same information.

(2) A lawyer shall not send, or knowingly permit to be sent, on behalf of the lawyer, the lawyer's firm, the lawyer's partner, an associate, or any other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the lawyer's firm a written communication to any prospective client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment if:

(a) The written communication concerns a specific matter and the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the person to whom the communication is directed is represented by a lawyer in the matter;

(b) It has been made known to the lawyer that the person does not want to receive such communications from the lawyer;

(c) The communication involves coercion, duress, fraud, overreaching, harassment, intimidation, or undue influence;

(d) The communication contains a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement or claim or is improper under Rule 7.1;

(e) The lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional, or mental state of the person makes it unlikely that the person would exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer.

The word "Advertisement" at the top of the letter and on the face of the envelope must be in type one size larger than the largest type used in the written communication.

Rule 7.4 provides:

Communications of Fields of Practice. -- A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law. A lawyer may not, however, indicate that his or her practice is limited to or concentrated in particular fields of law unless, as part of the same communication, the lawyer also indicates that Rhode Island does not have a procedure for certification or recognition of specialization by lawyers. A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is a specialist except as follows:

(a) a lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation "Patent Attorney," or a substantially similar designation; or

(b) a lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use the designation "Admiralty," "Proctor in Admiralty" or a substantially similar designation.

Rule 7.4 expressly permits an attorney to indicate the fact that he or she does or does not practice in particular fields of law. However Rule 7.4 also expressly prohibits a lawyer from implying that he or she is a specialist. Therefore, in order to clearly meet the requirements of Rule 7.4 and obtain Panel protection the attorney must include the specified disclaimer set forth in the rule to the effect that no procedure exists in Rhode Island for the certification or recognition of specialization by lawyers.

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.