Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a lawyer who is also an accountant advertise both professional roles?

Short answer The committee said the new rules did not prohibit cross-advertising as the former DR 2-102(E) had. It allowed the lawyer to advertise both roles if the advertising complied with North Dakota Rule 7.1.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
May 2, 1989
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who was also a certified public accountant asked whether an advertisement identifying both roles was permissible under the newer professional-conduct rules. The request contrasted the former DR 2-102(E) restriction on indicating both professions.

The committee agreed that the new rules did not prohibit cross-advertising in the same way. It said advertising as both accountant and lawyer was permissible so long as it was consistent with North Dakota Rule 7.1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Did the newer rules categorically prohibit advertising both roles?

A: No. The committee said they did not proscribe cross-advertising as former DR 2-102(E) had.

Q: What condition did the committee place on the advertisement?

A: It had to be consistent with North Dakota Rule 7.1.

Background and rules framework

The letter contrasts former DR 2-102(E) with the then-current North Dakota Rule 7.1. The committee’s permission was limited by Rule 7.1; it did not evaluate every possible advertisement.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 7.1, cited as the condition on advertising both professional roles.
  • Former DR 2-102(E), discussed as the superseded cross-advertising restriction.

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1989. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace