Could a Vermont lawyer advertise concentrations in more than one field of law?

Short answer Opinion 94-12 allowed a lawyer or firm to advertise concentration in multiple fields under former DR 2-105, subject to DR 2-101's ban on false or misleading claims and its requirement that quality or competence claims be factually substantiated.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1994

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. 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 Not binding precedent.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

Former Vermont DR 2-105 allowed a lawyer to communicate that the lawyer practiced or concentrated in one or more fields. The committee concluded that an individual lawyer or firm could therefore advertise concentration in more than one field.

That permission was subject to DR 2-101. The opinion said an advertisement could not be false or misleading and could not make a claim about quality of service or competence unless the claim could be factually substantiated. It also quoted DR 2-105's separate limits on stating that a lawyer was a specialist.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer limited to advertising one concentration?

A: No. The committee read DR 2-105 to permit advertising concentration in more than one field.

Q: Could the advertisement make an unsupported competence claim?

A: No. The opinion applied DR 2-101's requirement that claims about quality of service or competence be factually substantiated.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Vermont DR 2-101 on communications about legal services and DR 2-105 on fields of practice. Its conclusion addressed advertised concentrations, not certification as a specialist.

Citations and references

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

  • DR 2-101 and DR 2-105.

Cases cited:

  • In Re Zimmerman, 438 N.Y.S. 2d 400, 18 (New York Appellate Division 1981); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1994. 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