Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

Could a lawyer whose practice was not limited to divorce use a Yellow Pages advertisement saying 'DIVORCE ONLY'?

Short answer The committee said the word 'only' might mislead readers and recommended deleting it. With that word removed, the proposed advertisement appeared permissible under the North Dakota conduct rules.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
February 26, 1993
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1993. 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 proposed a Yellow Pages advertisement headed “DIVORCE ONLY.” The request letter said the lawyer did not restrict his practice to divorce law but wanted the directory advertisement to focus on that area.

The committee said advertising may identify a lawyer's services as long as the information is accurate and not false or misleading. The word “only” in this advertisement might mislead readers, so the committee recommended its deletion. It said the proposed ad appeared permissible under North Dakota's conduct rules once that word was removed. The committee cited In re R.M.J. for the ability to list areas of practice in advertisements.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Why did the committee object to “only”?

A: It said that word might mislead readers of the advertisement.

Q: Could the lawyer advertise divorce services without that word?

A: The committee said the proposed advertisement appeared permissible if “only” was deleted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses North Dakota's advertising rules without citing a numbered professional-conduct rule. It cites In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), on listing practice areas.

Citations and references

Cases:

  • In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982).

See also

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 1993. 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