TNBPR December 10, 1999

Did a lawyer who listed practice areas in an online directory have to include Tennessee's specialization-certification disclosures?

Short answer: Vacated. As originally issued, Formal Ethics Opinion 99-F-144(a) (a December 1999 reissue of 99-F-144) concluded that lawyers listing areas of practice on the Internet, including law directories or other public websites, had to comply with the certification-of-specialization disclosure requirements of DR 2-101(C); it allowed either the specific disclosure language or a prominent explanatory paragraph on each lawyer's initial screen, set an effective date of January 1, 2000, and overruled Opinion 84-F-76 to the extent of any conflict. The Board vacated the opinion on September 11, 2015.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The opinion addressed whether the certification-of-specialization disclosures required by DR 2-101(C) applied to practice areas a lawyer listed on the Internet. It is the December 10, 1999 reissue of Opinion 99-F-144 (issued June 14, 1999); the substance is the same. It recounted the Tennessee Supreme Court's certification-of-specialization program (effective June 15, 1994 and expanded through January 6, 1997 to add Estate Planning) and explained that DR 2-101(C) set out three precise disclosures that could be required, and that the rule applied to all published or broadcast communications, including Internet communications.

The opinion revisited Opinion 84-F-76 (1984), which had said the disclosures were not required for Martindale-Hubbell listings because that directory was then aimed at lawyers rather than the lay public. It concluded that, because Martindale-Hubbell by then published online and marketed itself to the public, lawyers listing practice areas on the Internet had to comply with DR 2-101(C). Compliance could be met by including the specific disclosure language or, alternatively, by displaying a prominent explanatory paragraph on each lawyer's initial screen stating that certifications of specialization are available in the listed areas and that listing related areas does not imply certification. It set an effective date of January 1, 2000 and overruled Opinion 84-F-76 to the extent of any conflict. (The Board later reissued the guidance, adding the Family Law specialty, as Opinion 2001-F-144(b).)

Currency note

Vacated. The Board of Professional Responsibility vacated Formal Ethics Opinion 99-F-144(a) on September 11, 2015, "due to changes in the laws or rules." This opinion also predated Tennessee's 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct and relied on the former Code's DR 2-101(C). A vacated opinion has no continuing force and is not the Board's current guidance; it is reproduced and summarized here as a historical research record only. Verify the current Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct before acting.

Common questions

Q: Did online practice-area listings trigger Tennessee's specialization disclosures?

A: Per the opinion, yes. It concluded that a lawyer listing practice areas in an online directory or other public website had to comply with DR 2-101(C), because the rule reached all published communications, including Internet communications.

Q: How could a lawyer comply on a website?

A: The opinion stated a lawyer could include the specific DR 2-101(C) disclosure language, or, alternatively, prominently display an explanatory paragraph on the initial screen noting that certifications are available in the listed areas and that listing related areas does not imply certification.

Q: Is this opinion still in effect?

A: No. The Board vacated it on September 11, 2015 due to changes in the laws or rules. It was a reissue of 99-F-144 and was later superseded by Opinion 2001-F-144(b), which the Board likewise vacated. It is preserved here only as a historical research record.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted DR 2-101(C) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which governed certification-of-specialization disclosures in lawyer advertising, and applied it to Internet listings. The modern analog is RPC 7.4 (Model Rule 7.4) on communicating fields of practice and certification. It reissued Opinion 99-F-144, partially overruled Opinion 84-F-76, and was later succeeded by Opinion 2001-F-144(b).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (former Code):

DR 2-101(C) (certification-of-specialization disclosures in advertising). Modern analog: Model Rule 7.4 / Tennessee RPC 7.4

Other opinions cited:

Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 84-F-76 (overruled in part); Opinion 99-F-144 (reissued by this opinion)

Source

Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/99-f-144a

Original opinion text

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

99-F-144(a) - Vacated*

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

Formal Ethics Opinion 99-F-144(a)

Lawyers listing areas of practice on the Internet, including law directories or otherWeb sites available to the public, should comply with the certification of specialization disclosure requirements of DR 2-101(C)

The Tennessee Supreme Court implemented the attorney certification of specialization program effective on June 15, 1994 when certifications of specialization became available in the areas of Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights, and all areas reasonably included in any of these areas. On August 25, 1995, the Supreme Court approved standards and made certification of specialization available in the areas of Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice and Elder Law; and on January 6, 1997 certification of specialization became available in the area of Estate Planning.

Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) embodied in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8 provides three separate precise disclosures which may potentially be required in an advertisement of legal services with regard to any area of the law advertised. If an attorney is certified in one area advertised, is not certified in another area advertised, and no certification is available in another area advertised, then all three disclosures are required. The disclosures are: [See DR 2-101(C)(2)(3) and (4)]

Certified as a (area of practice)

Specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing

Legal Education and Specialization

Not certified as a (area of practice)

Specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing

Legal Education and Specialization

Certification as a (area of practice)

Specialist is not current available in Tennessee

The intent of DR 2-101(C) was to assure meaningful flow of information to consumers of legal services and to protect against misleading communications to the public. The rule is applicable to all published or broadcast “communications” and consequently applicable to Internet communications.

Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 84-F-76 (October 16, 1984) stated that certification of specialization disclosures were not required when listing areas of practice in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory because the directory, at that time, was intended for the use of lawyers and not actively marketed to the lay public.

Technology and client development practices have dramatically changed since 1984. Martindale-Hubbell now publishes its law directory on the Internet and is available to the lay public. Martindale-Hubbell’s marketing materials to lawyers encourage listing of areas of practice for increased visibility, including online Internet availability, making the following assurances to participating lawyers; “Multi-mediacirculation to millions of potential clients”, “Your credentials are available to millions of prospective clients... on the Internet...a new Web site gateway for the general public” and “Martindale.Com is now averaging a million searches a month, while Lawyers.Com averages over 7,000 - - visitors a day just months after the launch - together more than 12 million searches a year.”

Therefore lawyers listing areas of practice on the Internet, including law directories or other Web sites available to the general public should comply with the certification of specialization disclosure requirements of DR 2-101(C). The specific disclosure language of DR 2-101(C) may be included or, in the alternative compliance is assured if the initial screen for each lawyer includes the following precise explanation displayed in a prominent manner.

Certifications of Specialization are available to

Tennessee lawyers in all areas of practice

relating to or included in the areas of Civil

Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy,

Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor’s Rights,

Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice,

Accounting Malpractice, Elder Law and Estate

Planning. Listing of related or included

practice areas herein does not constitute or imply a

representation of certification of specialization.

This ethics opinion becomes effective and applicable on January 1, 2000, at which time full compliance is required.

To the extent Formal Ethics Opinion 84-F-76 conflicts with this opinion, it is overruled.

This 10th day of December, 1999.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:

Johanna J. McGlothlin, Chair

Richard A. Fisher

Tom Hill

John W. Walton

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1999 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.