Could a Vermont lawyer advertise that the lawyer specialized in a practice area?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether print and radio advertisements could say the lawyer “specializes in” a field other than patent or admiralty law. The committee concluded that the claim would violate former Vermont DR 2-105 unless the rule's conditions for patent or admiralty practice or Vermont Supreme Court recognition as a specialist were met.
The committee distinguished a claim of specialization from describing a practice as “limited to” or “concentrates” in a field. It cited its Opinion 91-10 for that distinction. It also discussed Peel, which concerned a bona fide certification; the requesting lawyer had shown no comparable certification.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was 'specializes in' treated like 'concentrates in'?
A: No. The committee said a lawyer could use “concentrates” or “limited to” under DR 2-105, while the proposed specialization claim was barred by that rule.
Q: Did the opinion reject every specialist designation?
A: No. It described DR 2-105's patent and admiralty conditions and the exception for recognition as a specialist under Vermont Supreme Court requirements.
Background and rules framework
The committee applied former Vermont DR 2-105 on communicating fields of practice. It distinguished a certification discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Peel from this lawyer's unqualified advertising claim.
Citations and references
Former Vermont disciplinary rules:
- DR 2-105.
Cases cited:
- Peel v. Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, 496 U.S. 91 (1990); Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Joseph, Ohio Supreme Court No.90-2086 (April 13, 1991).
Other opinions cited:
- Vermont Opinion 91-10.
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 91-10: Trade names and concentration
- Vermont Ethics Op. 94-12: Multiple practice concentrations
Source
- Landing page: VBA specialization opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 92-09
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1992. 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