What exact phrase may a Tennessee lawyer who is an approved Rule 31 mediator use on letterhead to describe that status?

Plain-English summary

This opinion amends Opinion 98-F-142 (July 1998) on how a lawyer who is an approved Rule 31 mediator may describe that status on letterhead. The analysis is the same: DR 2-101(A) bars false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive public communications, and DR 2-101(C) requires certification and specialization disclosures. The opinion again relied on Opinion 93-F-131 (a lawyer who is also an impartial arbitrator, mediator, or neutral may indicate that on letterhead) and Opinion 135 (lawyers historically operate law-related ventures including mediation).

As in 98-F-142, the opinion concluded that, because the inquiring attorney is an approved Rule 31 mediator, including that fact on letterhead is not false or misleading, and that "Approved Rule 31 Mediator" may be misleading because it does not specifically indicate what body or agency approved the mediator. The difference is the approved phrase: where 98-F-142 had endorsed "Tennessee Supreme Court Approved Mediator," this amended opinion concludes that "Rule 31 Listed Mediator" is not misleading and may be used, because the Tennessee Supreme Court has promulgated standards to qualify individuals as Rule 31 dispute resolution neutrals.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility (including DR 2-101) on which it relied, and before the ABA's 2002 Ethics 2000 revisions. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify against the current rules before relying on any specific phrasing mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What exact phrase did this opinion approve for a lawyer-mediator's letterhead?

A: Per the opinion, "Rule 31 Listed Mediator" is not misleading and may be used. This amended the earlier 98-F-142, which had approved "Tennessee Supreme Court Approved Mediator."

Q: Why is "Approved Rule 31 Mediator" treated as potentially misleading?

A: The opinion concluded that phrase may be misleading because it does not specifically indicate what body or agency approved the mediator.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted the former Code's DR 2-101(A) (no false or misleading communications) and DR 2-101(C) (certification/specialization disclosures). The modern analogs are RPC 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1) and RPC 7.4 (Model Rule 7.4). It amends Opinion 98-F-142 and relies on Opinions 93-F-131 and 135.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former Code):

• DR 2-101(A) (no false or misleading communications); DR 2-101(C) (certification/specialization disclosures). Modern analogs: Model Rule 7.1 / Tennessee RPC 7.1; Model Rule 7.4 / Tennessee RPC 7.4

Other opinions cited:

• Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinions 98-F-142 (amended), 93-F-131, and 135

See also

• Tennessee Op. 98-F-142: Mediator Designation on Letterhead
• ABA Formal Op. 518: Lawyer-Mediator and Misleading Communications

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/98-f-142a

Original opinion text

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

98-F-142(a) - Mediator on Attorney's Letterhead

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-142 (a)

Inquiry is made as to whether an approved rule 31 mediator may list himself as “Approved Rule 31 Mediator” or “Tennessee Supreme Court Approved Mediator” on the attorney’s letterhead.

DR 2-101(A) prohibits lawyers from using or participating in using any form of public communication containing false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statements or claims.

DR 2-101(C) requires disclosures of certification and specialization with respect to each lawyer of law advertised.

Formal Ethics Opinion 93-F-131 states, “a lawyer who is engaged both in the practice of law and is an impartial arbitrator, mediator or neutral in an ADR proceeding may so indicate on his letterhead, office sign, professional card, or publication and may identify himself as a lawyer in connection with his activities as an arbitrator, mediator, or dispute resolution neutral. ...Whether performing mediation or arbitration services is to be considered a legal speciality and certified and regulated as such shall wait further clarification.”

Formal Ethics Opinion 135 states, “Lawyers have historically engaged in lawrelated activities by operating non-lawyer entities. Some of the law-related ventures or ancillary businesses operated, and law-related services provided, by lawyers are ... arbitration/mediation services...”

Since the attorney in this instance is an approved Rule 31 mediator, it is not false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive to include that statement on the attorney’s letterhead. To specifically address whether the attorney may use “Approved Rule 31 Mediator” or “Tennessee Supreme Court Approved Mediator,” this opinion concludes that “Approved Rule 31 Mediator” may be misleading since it does not specifically indicate what body or agency approved the mediator. “Rule 31 Listed Mediator” is not misleading and therefore may be used by the inquiring attorney since the Tennessee Supreme Court has promulgated standards to qualify individuals as a Rule 31 dispute resolution neutral.

This 11th day of December, 1998.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:

Larry D. Wilks, Chair

Michelle A. Benjamin

Jack W. Robinson, Sr.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD