Could a Washington lawyer advertise as a 'specialist' in 1990, given the Supreme Court's Peel decision?

Plain-English summary

Responding to a June 1990 inquiry, the committee advised that RPC 7.4 continued to prohibit the use of the term "specialist" in lawyer advertising or solicitation. The committee agreed with the inquirer that, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission, the rule might be of questionable constitutionality.

The committee noted that the Board of Governors had requested that the matter be referred to the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, which would review it at its July 27 meeting. At the time of the letter, however, the committee could advise only that RPC 7.4 continued in its present form.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, and the opinion itself flagged that RPC 7.4 was under review and possibly unconstitutional after Peel. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did RPC 7.4 still bar advertising as a "specialist" in 1990?

A: Under this opinion, yes, as of the date of the letter. The committee said the rule continued in its present form even as it acknowledged the constitutional doubt.

Q: What cast doubt on the rule?

A: The Supreme Court's decision in Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission, which the committee said might make RPC 7.4 of questionable constitutionality.

Q: Was the rule being reconsidered?

A: Yes. The committee noted the Board of Governors had referred the matter to the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee for review.

Background and rules framework

RPC 7.4, Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 7.4, governed a lawyer's communication of fields of practice and, as then written, restricted claims of specialization. The committee read the rule as still in force while signaling that the Supreme Court's commercial-speech decision in Peel had put its continued validity in question.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization)
• Washington RPC 7.4

Cases:

• Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission (as cited by the committee): the recent Supreme Court decision the committee said might make RPC 7.4 of questionable constitutionality.

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1271: Shared Phone Line Firm Name
• WA Ethics Op. 1270: Associating With a Nonlawyer Consultant

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=352

Original opinion text

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

In response to your letter of June 26, 1990, as you are aware RPC 7.4 continues to prohibit the use of the tern "specialist" in lawyer advertising or solicitation. You are, of course, correct that in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission, that rule may be of questionable constitutionality. The Board of Governors has requested that the matter be referred to the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee which will be reviewing the matter at their July 27 meeting. However, at the present time, all I can advise it that RPC 7.4 continues in its present form.