Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a law school's alumni directory list Vermont lawyers' areas of concentration or specialization?

Short answer Opinion 79-17 permitted listings of practice concentrations but rejected specialist designations outside former DR 2-105(A)'s stated exceptions, where the directory could confuse a preferred field with recognized specialty status.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1979
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1979. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, 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 Not binding precedent.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 as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Boston University's law school asked whether its alumni directory could designate graduates' legal specialties or areas of concentration. The committee said the directory could list fields of concentration under former DR 2-101(D)(1).

It distinguished a concentration from a specialist designation. Former DR 2-105(A) permitted specialist labels for specified patent, trademark, or admiralty work and for a designation by a state authority. The committee said Vermont then had no such state designation system, so the directory could not imply specialist status beyond the specified exceptions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Could the directory list a graduate's preferred practice field?

A: Yes. The committee allowed fields of concentration if the entry did not confuse that preference with a specialist designation.

Q: Was every specialist label prohibited?

A: No. The opinion described the limited fields and recognition routes in former DR 2-105(A), while noting Vermont then had no state specialist designation system.

Background and rules framework

The committee applied former Vermont DR 2-101(D)(1) and DR 2-105(A), and relied on its earlier Opinion 79-11(II).

Citations and references

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

  • DR 2-101(D)(1) and DR 2-105(A)(1), (2), and (4).

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinion 79-11(II).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1979. Ezel checks the current Vermont 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