Does an attorney advertising admiralty and Jones Act injury services, along with other workers' compensation matters, need the audible or visual disclaimer required for advertising a field of practice?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ask about yours and see what the current Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry asked whether an attorney could advertise legal services for admiralty matters arising while working on the river, along with workers' compensation claims generally, without the audible or visual disclaimer that Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) otherwise requires. The opinion defined maritime torts as civil wrongs committed on navigable waters, citing Pierside Terminal Operators, Inc. v. M/V Floridian, 374 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Va.), and noted that "admiralty" and "maritime" law are essentially synonymous.
The opinion applied Ethical Consideration 2-14 of the Code, which recognizes an exception for a lawyer who confines the lawyer's practice to a particular field of law when stating fields of specialty. Because the proposed advertisement covered fields of law beyond admiralty and the attorney did not confine the practice to admiralty alone, the opinion held both the audible and visual disclaimer of DR 2-101(C) are required in all the attorney's advertising, including advertising for Jones Act matters. The opinion concluded that only an attorney whose practice is restricted to admiralty alone may advertise without either disclaimer.
Currency note
Vacated. The Board of Professional Responsibility vacated Formal Ethics Opinion 84-F-79 on September 11, 2015 due to changes in the law or rules. This opinion was also issued in 1984, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. A vacated opinion has no continuing force and is not the Board's current guidance. It is reproduced and summarized here only as a historical research record. Do not rely on it as current; verify the current rules on advertising fields of practice under RPC 7.4 before acting.
Common questions
Q: Does an attorney advertising Jones Act and other injury claims need a specialty disclaimer?
A: Yes, according to this opinion, unless the attorney's practice is confined solely to admiralty; advertising any other field of law alongside admiralty triggers the audible and visual disclaimer requirement of DR 2-101(C).
Q: Is there any way to advertise admiralty work without the disclaimer?
A: Under this opinion, yes, but only if the attorney's entire practice is restricted to admiralty; in that narrow case neither disclaimer is required in any advertisement.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) and Ethical Consideration 2-14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which governed disclaimers for advertised fields of specialty. The modern correlate is Model Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization), cited here as a navigational cross-reference rather than a rule the opinion itself applied; this opinion has since been vacated, so current RPC 7.4 controls.
Citations and references
Cases:
- Pierside Terminal Operators, Inc. v. M/V Floridian, 374 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Va.), definition of a maritime tort
See also
- Tennessee Op. 84-F-72: Out-of-State Board Certification Does Not Replace the Specialty Disclaimer
- AZ Ethics Op. 87-11: Letterhead; Specialization
Source
- Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/84-f-79
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
84-F-79 - Vacated*
*Vacated by the Board of Professional Responsibility on September 11, 2015 due to changes in the law or rules.
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 84-F-79
Inquiry is made concerning the propriety of engaging in advertisement of legal services for admiralty inquiries while working on the river as well as other workers' compensation claims generally without the audible or visual disclaimer as provided for in DR 2-101(C).
Maritime torts are defined as civil wrong committed on navigable waters. See Pierside Terminal Operators, Inc. v. M/V Floridian, D.C., Va., 374 F. Supp. 27, 30. "Admiralty" and "maritime" law are virtually synonymous. See Black Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 44.
Ethical Consideration 2-14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the admiralty exception when stating fields of specialty and begins by stating:
In some instances, a lawyer confines his practice to a particular field of law.
It appears that the proposed advertisement contains fields of law other than admiralty and that the attorney does not confine his practice to admiralty. Therefore, both the audible and visual disclaimer provided for in Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) of the Code are required in all advertising, including "Jones Act" matters.
In the event the practice of the attorney is restricted to admiralty alone, neither the audible nor visual disclaimer is required in any of his advertisements.
This 17th day of October, 1984.
ETHICS COMMITTEE:
O. B. Hofstetter, Jr.
Jerry Colley
William R. Willis
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1984. Ezel checks the current Tennessee 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