Can a South Carolina lawyer list non-legal credentials like 'Master Mariner' or 'First Class Pilot' on the law firm letterhead?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who had served many years as a Merchant Marine officer before becoming an attorney proposed placing the credentials "Master Mariner, First Class Pilot, Marine Consultant" on his law firm letterhead to advertise his maritime experience. The committee concluded the proposed letterhead was misleading.

Applying Rule 7.1(a)'s test for false or misleading communications, the committee reasoned that a letterhead conveys information about the attorney, and that listing "Master Mariner" and "First Class Pilot" was the same as stating the lawyer is an expert, specialist, or authority in admiralty law. Because admiralty law is not a field the South Carolina Supreme Court has designated for specialization, and the lawyer was not certified, the letterhead may violate Rule 7.4(b), which bars an uncertified attorney's advertising from using any form of the words "certified," "specialist," "expert," or "authority," and Rule 7.5. The committee noted the lawyer could advertise that he concentrates his practice in admiralty law, but the proposed letterhead did not say that.

The committee further found the letterhead may violate Rule 7.1 by creating a perceived connection between the lawyer's life experiences and his competence, likely producing an unjustified expectation about results. It distinguished the First Amendment decisions in Peel and Ibanez, reasoning that those cases protected truthful references to professional certifications and licenses, while this letterhead did not relate to the practice of law and was a statement of opinion about the lawyer's individual abilities.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise a prior non-legal career on the firm letterhead?

A: The committee concluded that listing maritime titles like "Master Mariner" and "First Class Pilot" was misleading because it was the equivalent of claiming expertise in admiralty law without certification.

Q: Could the lawyer instead say he concentrates in admiralty law?

A: The committee said an attorney concentrating in admiralty law could advertise that limitation on his letterhead, but the proposed letterhead did not state that he concentrates in admiralty.

Q: Did the First Amendment protect the proposed letterhead?

A: The committee distinguished Peel and Ibanez, reasoning those cases protected truthful claims of certifications and licenses, while this letterhead did not relate to the practice of law.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications), Rule 7.4(b) (communications about fields of practice, barring an uncertified lawyer from using "certified," "specialist," "expert," or "authority"), and Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), each corresponding to the like-numbered Model Rule as the rules stood in 1996.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1: false or misleading communications.
• South Carolina RPC 7.4(b) / Model Rule 7.4: communications about fields of practice and specialization.
• South Carolina RPC 7.5 / Model Rule 7.5: firm names and letterheads.

Cases:

• Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990): advertising of certification by credible legal organizations.
• Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 512 U.S. 136 (1994): a lawyer referencing CPA and CFP credentials on letterhead.

Other opinions cited:

• SC Bar Adv. Ops. 90-23, 93-10, 92-08, 88-05, 86-15: prior committee guidance on letterhead and advertising of credentials.

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 96-01: Advertising a Firm's "Established" Date
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 95-30: Operating a Side Business Under the Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-96-03/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 96-03

Prior to becoming an attorney, Attorney A was, for many years, an officer in the Merchant Marine. Attorney A has now formed his own firm and proposes to advertise his wealth of maritime experience on his firm's letterhead. Specifically, Attorney A proposes to place the following non-law related credentials on his professional letterhead: "Master Mariner, First Class Pilot, Marine Consultant."

Question:
May the attorney put the non-law credentials on his law firm's letterhead without violating Rule 7.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Summary:
The letterhead used by Attorney A may violate Rules 7.4 and 7.5 by improperly implying or suggesting that Attorney A is an expert, specialist, or authority in admiralty law.

Opinion:
Rule 7.1(a) provides that a communication is false or misleading if it "contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading." This committee has previously advised that a letterhead is utilized to convey information about an attorney or law firm. Adv. Op. 90-23. We have specified certain instances in which the Rules of Professional Conduct did not expressly prohibit a lawyer from advertising that he is licensed in another profession (Adv. Op. 93-10) or that he may represent himself as a "nurse attorney," provided the representation is true. Ad. Op. 92-08. Rule 7.4(b) permits an attorney to concentrate his practice in certain areas of law and to advertise or publicly state that limitation in any manner permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, when the attorney is not certified as a specialist, Rule 7.4(b) further provides that any advertisement or statement made by the attorney shall be strictly factual and "shall not contain any form of the words "certified',specialist', expert', orauthority'". We note that admiralty law is not one of the fields of law designated for legal specialization by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The Attorney's letterhead appears to be misleading and may violate Rules 7.4(b) and 7.5 by improperly implying or suggesting that Attorney A is an expert, specialist, or authority in admiralty law without proper certification. Adv. Op. 88-05 (In order to list a particular field of law in an advertisement, the attorney must have experience in that field); Adv. Op. 86-15 (attorney cannot advertise his specialization in area of practice recognized as specialty by South Carolina Supreme Court unless he is actually certified specialist in that area). Attorney A's placement of the terms "Master Mariner" and "First Class Pilot" on his proposed letterhead is the same as stating he is an expert, specialist, or authority in admiralty law. Under 7.4(b), an attorney concentrating his practice in admiralty law may advertise this limitation on his letterhead. However, Attorney A's proposed letterhead does not state that he is concentrating in admiralty law. For these reasons, the letterhead is misleading. Moreover, Attorney A's proposed letterhead may violate Rule 7.1(b) by creating the perception of a connection between the Attorney's life experiences and his competency as an attorney. It is likely to create an unjustified expectation as to results Attorney A can achieve. There is no connection between the proposed letterhead and the practice of law. Therefore, the preferred choice is to avoid mention of one profession in connection with the other. It could be argued that Attorney's proposed letterhead should be afforded First Amendment protection pursuant to the United State Supreme Court's decisions in Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 110 L.Ed.2d 83 (1990) and Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 512 U.S. , 114 S.Ct. 2084, 129 L.Ed.2d 118 (1994). However, we believe these decisions are distinguishable from Attorney A's situation. The Peel ruling simply holds that categorical prohibitions against attorneys advertising their certification by credible legal organizations were unconstitutional when the claims were not actually or inherently misleading. In Ibanez, the Court held that an attorney could refer to her credentials as a licensed Certified Public Accountant and an authorized Certified Financial Planner on her professional letterhead. Attorney A's proposed letterhead does not appear to relate to the practice of law, professional certifications or licenses, or any other commercial endeavor. The letterhead is a statement of opinion as to the attorney's individual abilities and does not permit a consumer to draw an inference of the likely quality of his work in the area of admiralty law.