Under Vermont's 1983 Code, could a lawyer who was also a CPA put CPA on legal business cards, stationery, and an office sign?

Short answer Opinion 83-02 held that former DR 2-102(E) prohibited the proposed CPA designation, while reserving constitutional advertising questions outside the committee's Code interpretation.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1983

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1983. 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 Not binding precedent.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

A lawyer who also practiced as a certified public accountant asked whether he could show the CPA designation on business cards, stationery, and an office sign. The committee said former DR 2-102(E) prohibited identifying another profession on those lawyer materials.

The committee limited its answer to the Code as then adopted in Vermont. It noted that the ABA had recommended repealing the provision in light of constitutional advertising decisions, but did not decide the constitutional issue. Later Opinion 88-10 reports that the Vermont Supreme Court deleted DR 2-102(E) and reached a different result under the remaining misleading-communication rule.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. Opinion 88-10 reports that the Vermont Supreme Court later deleted the provision on which this holding depended. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history states that the Rules of Professional Conduct applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999. Treat this opinion as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: What rule controlled the committee's answer?

A: Former DR 2-102(E) barred a lawyer practicing another profession from indicating that fact on legal letterhead, an office sign, or a professional card.

Q: Did the committee decide whether that restriction was constitutional?

A: No. It said its opinions addressed the meaning of Vermont's adopted Code and noted the ABA's repeal recommendation and constitutional decisions.

Background and rules framework

The holding rested on former DR 2-102(E). The later deletion of that section is stated in Opinion 88-10, which analyzed similar facts under DR 2-101.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-102(E)

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1983. 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