Does a Tennessee lawyer need the DR 2-101(C) certification disclaimer when advertising flat prices for routine services like divorce, bankruptcy, or adoption?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.
Plain-English summary
An attorney proposed advertising a price list for routine services: an uncontested divorce ($65), an individual non-business Chapter 7 bankruptcy ($175), avoiding a lien ($40), and an adoption ($200), alongside the attorney's name and phone number, and asked whether the disclaimer in Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) had to be included. The opinion reviewed the background of attorney fee advertising, noting that the Legal Clinic of Bates and O'Steen had been censured by the Arizona Supreme Court for a similar 1976 newspaper advertisement listing prices for divorce, bankruptcy, adoption, and name-change services, a censure the U.S. Supreme Court addressed in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, where it framed "[t]he heart of the dispute" as "whether lawyers may constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain routine services will be performed," and held that "the State may [not] prevent the publication in a newspaper of... truthful advertising concerning the availability and terms of routine legal services" because "the flow of such information may not be restrained."
The opinion then quoted Ethical Consideration 2-3 of the Tennessee Code, as amended March 9, 1983: "Nothing in this Code shall be construed to... prohibit the publication of fees for the performance of routine legal services." On that basis, it concluded that "the publication and advertising of prices at which certain routine services will be performed does not require including the disclaimer provided for in Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) of the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility."
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer advertise a flat fee for an uncontested divorce or routine bankruptcy?
A: Yes. The opinion quotes Ethical Consideration 2-3 of the Tennessee Code, as amended March 9, 1983: "Nothing in this Code shall be construed to... prohibit the publication of fees for the performance of routine legal services."
Q: Must that fee advertisement include the DR 2-101(C) disclaimer used for practice-area listings?
A: No. The opinion holds "the publication and advertising of prices at which certain routine services will be performed does not require including the disclaimer provided for in Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C)."
Q: What case provided the constitutional backdrop for advertising routine-service prices?
A: Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), quoted by the opinion for holding that a state may not restrain "the publication in a newspaper of... truthful advertising concerning the availability and terms of routine legal services."
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Ethical Consideration 2-3 of the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility, as amended March 9, 1983, which permitted publishing fees for routine legal services, and distinguished that publication from the practice-area disclaimer required by Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C). The modern correlate is Model Rule 7.2 (advertising), cited here as a navigational cross-reference rather than a rule the opinion itself applied.
Citations and references
Cases:
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), states may not restrain truthful advertising of routine legal service prices
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/84-f-63
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
84-F-63 - Advertising fees for routine services
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 84-F-63
Inquiry is made concerning the propriety of advertising the prices at which certain routine services will be performed without including the disclaimer provided for in Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C).
The proposed advertising contemplated in the inquiry is as follows:
Divorce - both sign ------------------------ $ 65
Individual Non-Business Chap 7 Bankruptcy -- $175
Avoid Lien --------------------------------- $ 40
Adoption ----------------------------------- $200
(NAME OF ATTORNEY) (TELEPHONE NUMBER)
On February 22, 1976, the Legal Clinic of Bates and O'Steen placed the following advertisement in the Arizona Republic daily newspaper in Phoenix:
Divorce or legal separation-uncontested (both spouses sign papers)
$175 plus $20 court filing fee
Preparation of all court papers and instructions on how to
do your own simple uncontested divorce $100
Adoption - uncontested severance proceeding
$225 plus approximately $10 publication cost
Bankruptcy - non-business, no contested proceedings
Individual
$250 plus $55 court filing fee
Wife and Husband
$300 plus $110 court filing fee
Change of name
$95 plus $20 court filing fee
The Arizona Supreme Court censured the attorneys because the advertisement was prohibited by their Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in considering the First Amendment Rights of the attorneys to commercial speech in the case of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, stated on pages 367 and 368:
The heart of the dispute before us today is whether lawyers may constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain routine services will be performed.
And on page 384:
The constitutional issue in this case is only whether the State may prevent the publication in a newspaper of appellant's truthful advertising concerning the availability and terms of routine legal services. We rule simply that the flow of such information may not be restrained, ....
Ethical Consideration 2-3 of the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility, as amended on March 9, 1983, states:
Nothing in this Code shall be construed to ... prohibit the publication of fees for the performance of routine legal services.
The publication and advertising of prices at which certain routine services will be performed does not require including the disclaimer provided for in Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) of the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility.
This 18th day of January, 1984.
ETHICS COMMITTEE:
O. B. Hofstetter, Jr.
F. Evans Harvill
William R. Willis
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.