When a lawyer writes articles for a trade journal, what biographical information may appear in the author byline?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about the limits on the biographical sketch that could accompany articles he wrote for a professional journal aimed at real estate brokers. He proposed including his J.D. degree and other biographical material along with his name.

The Committee allowed only the author's name and the fact that he is a New Jersey lawyer. It found the J.D. degree neither recommended nor approved in New Jersey, and rejected the rest of the proposed material. The Committee reasoned that the additional information was not calculated to sell the articles but to sell the author, and so lacked the dignity prescribed for lawyers and was self-laudatory and prohibited.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1973, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. Lawyer-advertising restrictions of this kind were substantially changed after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and by later rule revisions; truthful biographical information about a lawyer is now governed by RPC 7.1. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer list his J.D. degree in the article byline?

A: No. The opinion stated that use of the J.D. degree was neither recommended nor approved in New Jersey at that time.

Q: What was the lawyer allowed to include?

A: The author's name and the fact that he is a New Jersey lawyer. The Committee rejected the other proposed biographical details.

Q: Why was the additional biographical material prohibited?

A: The Committee reasoned the material was calculated to sell the author rather than the article, making it self-laudatory and lacking the dignity then prescribed for lawyers.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied New Jersey's then-restrictive advertising and self-laudation principles to a lawyer's authorship byline. The substance, what a lawyer may truthfully say about himself in print, is now governed by RPC 7.1, under a legal framework reshaped by Bates and its successors.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• New Jersey advertising / self-laudation rules as in effect 1973; now MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1977), holding (after this opinion) that blanket bans on lawyer advertising violate the First Amendment

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 305: A Foreign Attorney's Legal Title on a Bank's Letterhead
• NJ ACPE Op. 442: A Letterhead Stating Various Court Admissions
• NJ ACPE Op. 447: A Lawyer's Use of "CPA" on a Letterhead

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp257-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

96 N.J.L.J. 751, June 21, 1973

OPINION 257

Advertising Published Articles Including Biographical Sketch

This inquiry concerns the guidelines and limitations of the lawyer's biographical sketch included with articles prepared by him and published in a professional journal for real estate brokers. The proposed information is as follows:

The use of the degree J.D. is not recommended or approved in New Jersey, nor is any of the other material suggested, except the author's name and the fact that he is a New Jersey lawyer. The other material is not calculated to sell the articles, but to sell the author, and therefore lacks the dignity which is prescribed for lawyers and is self-laudatory and prohibited.