Can a law firm mail announcements that it has hired a nonlawyer, such as a former agency official, as a technical assistant?

Plain-English summary

Opinion E-83-3 addressed whether a law firm may mail formal announcements that a former official with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue had been retained as a "technical assistant in the area of state and local taxation," with a footnote stating he is not licensed to practice law. The committee answered yes.

The committee revisited its earlier Formal Opinion E-80-15, which had read SCR 20.08(7)(a) and SCR 20.08(1) as not permitting announcement of the hiring of a paralegal, legal assistant, or other nonlawyer employee. It explained that recent U.S. Supreme Court and Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions raised serious questions about the limits on lawyer advertising, and it withdrew any portion of E-80-15 in conflict with this opinion. The committee noted that SCR 20.08(7)(a) permits advertising the lawyer's availability to provide legal services except where false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair, and that the Supreme Court's adopting comment permits dissemination of objective, relevant information for an informed selection of counsel. Because the use of nonlawyers to assist lawyers is sanctioned and encouraged by SCR 20.17(6) and may be relevant to selecting counsel, the committee found that announcing the hiring of a former Revenue official to assist tax-limited practices, with the appropriate not-licensed disclaimer, would be objective, relevant, and not misleading, and therefore permitted advertising. The committee believed this accorded with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona and In re R.M.J., which held truthful, non-misleading lawyer advertising is protected commercial speech that may not be subject to blanket suppression, with disclaimers preferred over outright prohibition, and noted In re Marcus & Tepper.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Code's advertising provisions (SCR 20.08). Lawyer advertising and communications are now governed by SCR 20:7.1 and 20:7.2 / Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2. Subsequent rule amendments, court decisions, and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a firm announce by mail that it had hired a nonlawyer assistant?

A: Yes, under E-83-3, provided the announcement carried a disclaimer that the person is not licensed to practice law.

Q: What happened to the earlier opinion that said no?

A: The committee withdrew any portion of its earlier Formal Opinion E-80-15 that conflicted with E-83-3, citing intervening advertising decisions.

Q: Why did the constitutional advertising cases matter?

A: The committee relied on Bates and R.M.J., which protect truthful, non-misleading lawyer advertising as commercial speech and favor disclaimers over blanket prohibition.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted the former Code's advertising rules, SCR 20.08(7)(a) (advertising availability to provide legal services) and SCR 20.08(1) (cards, announcements, letterheads), together with SCR 20.17(6) (use of lay assistants) and the duty to facilitate intelligent selection of counsel (SCR 20.06(1)), informed by Bates and R.M.J. Advertising is now governed by SCR 20:7.1 and 20:7.2 / Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Wis. SCR 20.08(7)(a), 20.08(1) / Model Rules 7.1, 7.2 (advertising; announcements and letterheads) (former Code provisions)
• Wis. SCR 20.17(6), 20.06(1) (use of lay assistants; facilitating selection of counsel) (former Code provisions)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), lawyer advertising as protected commercial speech
• In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 102 S. Ct. 929 (1982), restrictions no broader than necessary; disclaimers preferred
• In re Marcus & Tepper, 107 Wis. 2d 560, 320 N.W.2d 806 (1982), Wisconsin advertising discipline

Other opinions cited:

• Wis. Formal Opinion E-80-15 (withdrawn in part by this opinion): announcing the hiring of nonlawyers

See also

• WI Ethics Op. E-85-6: Listing Legal Assistants on Firm Letterhead
• WI Ethics Op. E-88-1: Law Degrees on an Accountant's Business Card
• WI Ethics Op. E-84-13: Direct Mail Advertising

Source

• Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-83-3.pdf