WSBA 1988

Can a lawyer advertise as a 'personal injury expert'?

Short answer: The committee was of the opinion that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not expressly prohibit the term 'expert' and that its use is not per se improper; the only question is whether using the term would be false or misleading.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1988
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The committee reviewed inquiries referred to it by the Disciplinary Board concerning whether lawyers could properly use the term "personal injury experts." After considerable discussion, the committee was of the opinion that the Rules of Professional Conduct did not expressly prohibit the use of the term "expert" and that its use is not per se improper.

The committee was of the opinion that the question is merely whether the use of such a term would be false or misleading.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice) correspond to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.4 and have since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise as a "personal injury expert"?

A: Per the opinion, the term is not expressly prohibited and is not per se improper. The committee was of the opinion that the use of the term "expert" is permitted so long as it is not false or misleading.

Q: What makes using the term "expert" improper?

A: The committee was of the opinion that the question is merely whether the use of the term would be false or misleading; if it would, its use would be improper.

Q: Did the committee set a flat rule against the word "expert"?

A: No. The committee found that the Rules of Professional Conduct did not expressly prohibit the term, so the analysis turns on whether the particular use is false or misleading rather than on a blanket ban.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rules then numbered Washington RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.4, corresponding to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.4, which govern communications about a lawyer's services and fields of practice. The committee made the outcome turn on whether the communication is false or misleading rather than on the word "expert" itself, which it found is not expressly prohibited.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), corresponding to Model Rule 7.1.
  • Washington RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice), corresponding to Model Rule 7.4.

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1186
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.4
Subject: Advertising; use of term "expert"

The Committee reviewed the inquiries referred to them by the Disciplinary Board concerning whether or not lawyers could properly use the term "personal injury experts." After considerable discussion, the Committee was of the opinion that the Rules of Professional Conduct did not expressly prohibit the use of the term "expert" and it is not per se improper. The Committee was of the opinion that the question is merely whether the use of such a term would be false or misleading.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1988 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.