Could a Tennessee law firm produce and distribute a brochure listing its practice areas and lawyer bios to clients and prospective clients on request?

Currency note

Vacated. The Board of Professional Responsibility vacated this opinion on September 11, 2015, "due to changes in the law or rules." It was issued in 1983, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct (which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility) and against an early-1980s lawyer-advertising rule set that has since been substantially revised. It is reproduced and summarized here only as a historical research record, not as current guidance.

Plain-English summary

A law firm asked whether it could produce and distribute a brochure to its regular clients and to prospective clients on request. The proposed brochure gave a short firm history, a biographical sketch and small photograph of each lawyer, a list of the firm's practice areas (general litigation, products liability, professional malpractice defense, workers' compensation, construction and suretyship, probate, criminal, corporate, commercial, real estate, and patent, copyright, and trademark law), and the firm's address, and stated that a representative client list and a fee schedule would be furnished on request.

The opinion noted that Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-14 (1981) had held such a brochure impermissible, but that on March 9, 1983 the Tennessee Supreme Court amended the publicity rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It set out Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A) (a lawyer must not use a firm name, letterhead, or professional designation that violates DR 2-101 or DR 2-105), Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) (a communication listing specific areas of practice must include precise disclaimer language that the listing does not indicate certification or expertise), and Disciplinary Rule 2-101(M) (the rules for handbills, circulars, and direct mail).

The opinion concluded that there was no impropriety in producing and distributing such a brochure to regular and prospective clients on request, provided the requirements of DR 2-101(C) and DR 2-101(M) were strictly followed.

Common questions

Q: Could a firm hand out a practice-areas brochure to clients and prospective clients?

A: On request, yes, under the 1983 rules. The opinion found "no impropriety of producing and distributing a law firm brochure to regular clients and/or to prospective clients upon request provided the requirements of DR 2-101(C) and DR 2-101(M) are strictly followed."

Q: What did the brochure have to include?

A: Per DR 2-101(C), any listing of specific practice areas had to carry the precise disclaimer that "listing of the above legal services or specific areas of practice does not indicate any certification or expertise therein."

Q: Is this opinion still good guidance?

A: No. The Board of Professional Responsibility vacated it on September 11, 2015 "due to changes in the law or rules," and it predates Tennessee's 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility's publicity rules as amended by the Tennessee Supreme Court on March 9, 1983: Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A) (professional notices, letterheads, and offices), Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) (the practice-area disclaimer), and Disciplinary Rule 2-101(M) (handbills, circulars, and direct mail). It departed from the earlier Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-14. The modern correlates are Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.2 (advertising), noted here as navigational cross-references rather than rules the opinion itself applied.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• DR 2-102(A) (professional notices, letterheads, offices), DR 2-101(C) (practice-area disclaimer), DR 2-101(M) (handbills, circulars, direct mail), Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility
• Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and Model Rule 7.2 (advertising), modern correlates

Other opinions cited:

• Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-14 (1981), earlier holding that such a brochure was impermissible

See also

• Tennessee Op. 81-F-17: Law Firm Manual Not Permissible Advertising
• Tennessee Op. 83-F-49(a): Law Firm Brochure Delivery (Vacated)
• Tennessee Op. 85-F-95: Law Firm Brochures
• Tennessee Op. 84-F-63: Advertising Fixed Fees for Routine Services

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/83-f-49

Original opinion text

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

83-F-49 - Vacated*

*Vacated by the Board of Professional Responsibility on September 11, 2015 due to changes in the law or rules.

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 83-F-49

Inquiry is made as to the propriety of producing and distributing a law firm brochure to regular clients and/or to prospective clients upon request.

The proposed brochure contains a short history of the law firm and a biographical sketch of each member and associate accompanied by a small photograph of each attorney. The brochure states that the firm has a diversified general practice including general litigation, products liability law; defense of medical, dental, accountants, architects and engineers malpractice and other professional negligence actions; worker's compensation law; construction law and suretyship; probate law; criminal law; corporate; commercial; real estate; and patent, copyright and trademark law. The address of the firm is stated. The brochure provides that a list of representative clients and a schedule of fees will be furnished upon request. The brochure is prepared for and furnished only to the firm's regular clients or prospective clients who may request a copy.

Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-14, issued on August 26, 1981, held that the production and dissemination of such a proposed manual was not permissible at that time.

On March 9, 1983, the publicity rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility were amended by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Disciplinary Rule 2-102(A) of the Code provides:

DR 2-102 PROFESSIONAL NOTICES, LETTERHEADS and OFFICES.

(A) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates DR 2-101 or DR 2-105.

Thus, professional notices such as the brochure proposed herein must comply with the publicity and advertising rules of the Code.

Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) of the Code provides:

(C) If a lawyer publishes or broadcasts a communication that contains any listing of legal services for specific areas of practice, the communication must include the following precise wording:

LISTING OF THE ABOVE LEGAL SERVICES OR SPECIFIC AREAS OF PRACTICE DOES NOT INDICATE ANY CERTIFICATION OR EXPERTISE THEREIN.

Disciplinary Rule 2-101(M) of the Code provides:

(M) Lawyers may advertise in established and regularly published print media and over established electronic media. Handbills, circulars, direct mail, or the like may be used, but only if the contents comply with all requirements that pertain to the print media, and if the persons who deliver the handbills, circulars, direct mail and the like are not the lawyer or associates or members of the law firm advertised, and do not engage in solicitation.

There is no impropriety of producing and distributing a law firm brochure to regular clients and/or to prospective clients upon request provided the requirements of DR 2-101(C) and DR 2-101(M) are strictly followed.

This 14th day of July , 1983.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:

Edwin C. Townsend

W. J. Flippin

Henry H. Hancock

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD