🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee Ethics Opinions

Free plain-English summaries of legal ethics opinions issued by the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, with full citations and source links on every page.

203 opinions · Updated July 1, 2026
32 opinions Advertising

No Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee opinions match these filters

Try a different search term or clear the filters.

Can a Tennessee lawyer participate in an online marketplace where clients post legal projects and lawyers submit fee quotes, without it being an improper referral service?

Formal Ethics Opinion 2018-F-165 concludes that a legal marketplace website where clients post projects and lawyers submit fee quotes is not an intermediary organization (lawyer referral service) and …

March 9, 2018

Is a joint television advertising program with exclusive geographic territories and a flat monthly fee a 'lawyer referral service' under Tennessee's rules?

Formal Ethics Opinion 2006-F-152 concludes that the R. W. Lynch (Injury Helpline) joint advertising program, in which participating lawyers pay a flat monthly fee, hold exclusive geographic territorie…

June 16, 2006

What kinds of claims in Tennessee lawyer advertising count as false or misleading under RPC 7.1, including past results, testimonials, and 'best lawyer' claims?

Formal Ethics Opinion 2004-F-149 concludes that, under RPC 7.1, lawyer ads may not refer to prior results (damage awards, settlements, verdicts) unless they also state the specific factual and legal c…

September 17, 2004

Does a lawyer listing practice areas in an online directory have to include Tennessee's specialization-certification disclosures?

Vacated. As originally issued, Formal Ethics Opinion 2001-F-144(b) concluded that lawyers listing areas of practice on the Internet, including law directories and other public websites, had to comply …

March 9, 2001

What specialization-certification disclosures did a Tennessee lawyer advertisement have to include, and for which practice areas?

Vacated. As originally issued, Formal Ethics Opinion 2001-F-137(b) explained that under DR 2-101(C) a lawyer advertising a practice area had to include the precise certified, not-certified, or not-ava…

March 9, 2001

Did a lawyer who listed practice areas in an online directory have to include Tennessee's specialization-certification disclosures?

Vacated. As originally issued, Formal Ethics Opinion 99-F-144(a) (a December 1999 reissue of 99-F-144) concluded that lawyers listing areas of practice on the Internet, including law directories or ot…

December 10, 1999

Did a lawyer who listed practice areas in an online directory have to include Tennessee's specialization-certification disclosures?

Vacated. As originally issued, Formal Ethics Opinion 99-F-144 concluded that lawyers listing areas of practice on the Internet, including law directories or other public websites, had to comply with t…

June 14, 1999

What exact phrase may a Tennessee lawyer who is an approved Rule 31 mediator use on letterhead to describe that status?

Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-142(a) amends 98-F-142. It reaches the same analysis (a Rule 31 mediator may note that status on letterhead, and 'Approved Rule 31 Mediator' may be misleading because it doe…

December 11, 1998

After Tennessee added Estate Planning as a certifiable specialty, what specialization-certification disclosures did lawyer advertising have to include?

Vacated. Formal Ethics Opinion 95-F-137(a) reissued the specialization-advertising disclosure rules of 95-F-137 to reflect that the Supreme Court had made certification available in Estate Planning ef…

December 11, 1998

Can a lawyer who is an approved Tennessee Rule 31 mediator advertise that status on the firm letterhead, and in what words?

Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-142 concluded that a lawyer who is an approved Rule 31 mediator may state that on letterhead, but that 'Approved Rule 31 Mediator' may be misleading because it does not say …

July 8, 1998

What specialization-certification disclosures did a Tennessee lawyer have to include when advertising a practice area, and for which areas?

Vacated. As originally issued, Formal Ethics Opinion 95-F-137 explained that under DR 2-101(C) a lawyer advertising any area of law had to include the precise certified, not-certified, or not-availabl…

December 8, 1995

Can a practicing lawyer who also serves as a mediator or arbitrator list both roles on letterhead, an office sign, or a business card?

Formal Ethics Opinion 93-F-131 concluded that serving as an impartial arbitrator, mediator, or other ADR neutral is not engaging in 'another profession or business' within DR 2-102(E), so a lawyer eng…

September 10, 1993

After litigation, could a private personal-injury lawyer network operate in Tennessee as a joint advertising cooperative rather than a barred referral service?

Formal Ethics Opinion 90-F-122(a) amended 90-F-122 after PITLA sued the Board (alleging First Amendment and antitrust violations) and the parties settled. Under the settlement, PITLA and its Tennessee…

October 23, 1990

Can lawyers participate in a for-profit lawyer referral service that is not operated or approved by a bar association?

Vacated. As originally issued, Formal Ethics Opinion 90-F-122 concluded that it is improper for lawyers to participate in the lawyer referral service promoted and operated by PITLA, U.S.A., Inc., a pr…

March 9, 1990

Could a Tennessee lawyer advertise using a phone number or address in a distant city without disclosing that the lawyer had no local office there?

Vacated. As originally issued, the opinion concluded that DR 2-101 was violated when a lawyer advertised in a city away from the lawyer's actual office, such as a Knoxville lawyer advertising in Chatt…

September 8, 1989

Can a Tennessee law firm produce a brochure with lawyer biographies, photographs, and a firm logo for clients and prospective clients?

The opinion held there is no impropriety in producing and distributing a brochure describing the firm's practice areas, lawyer backgrounds, and photographs, including a firm logo using the firm's init…

May 6, 1985

Can a law firm sell paid subscriptions to nonclients for its monthly legal-developments newsletter, rather than just distributing it free to clients?

The opinion held there is no impropriety in a law firm selling subscriptions to a monthly publication of legal developments to non-clients, or in circulating a brochure describing the publication and …

January 16, 1985

Does an attorney advertising admiralty and Jones Act injury services, along with other workers' compensation matters, need the audible or visual disclaimer required for advertising a field of practice?

The opinion held that the audible and visual disclaimer of Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C) is required for any advertisement, including one covering Jones Act matters, where the attorney's practice is not …

October 17, 1984

Can an attorney send direct-mail letters to every homeowner facing foreclosure, and can an attorney mail CPAs asking them to refer tax clients?

The opinion held there is no impropriety in direct-mail advertising sent to every defaulting mortgagor whose home is advertised for foreclosure, though the specific letter's claim of experience to pro…

October 17, 1984

Did a Tennessee lawyer need the DR 2-101(C) specialization disclaimer to list three areas of practice in Martindale-Hubbell's biographical section?

No. The opinion held that Martindale-Hubbell's own proposed disclaimer language for its new fields-of-law listing feature substantially complied with DR 2-101(C), so there was no impropriety in a lawy…

October 16, 1984

Can a Tennessee lawyer who is board certified as an immigration specialist by another state's bar cite that certification in advertising instead of the required specialty disclaimer?

No. Pending Tennessee's adoption of its own specialization rule, the opinion held a lawyer may not publish a listing of specific practice areas, even citing certification from another state's board (h…

June 13, 1984

Must a lawyer licensed only in Tennessee include the DR 2-101(C) specialty disclaimer when advertising in national publications for legal services to be performed in interstate commerce?

Yes. Because Tennessee's Code of Professional Responsibility is the controlling authority on the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed solely in Tennessee, the opinion held such an attorney must inclu…

May 29, 1984

Can a lawyer join a trade exchange or barter group that charges a percentage fee on every transaction, without a trade broker or approval process for the trades?

No. The opinion concluded that an attorney is ethically prohibited from participating in a trade exchange association or barter group that charges a fee or membership charge on each transaction, becau…

April 12, 1984

Does a Tennessee lawyer need the DR 2-101(C) certification disclaimer when advertising flat prices for routine services like divorce, bankruptcy, or adoption?

No. The opinion held that publishing or advertising the prices at which routine legal services will be performed does not require the disclaimer provided for in DR 2-101(C), consistent with Ethical Co…

January 18, 1984

Could a Tennessee law firm mail brochures to clients and prospective clients without a request, and could lawyers or staff personally hand-deliver them?

Mail yes, hand-delivery no. The opinion, clarifying 83-F-49, concluded a firm could distribute or mail brochures to regular and prospective clients even without a request, provided DR 2-101(C) and DR …

January 18, 1984

Could a Tennessee law firm produce and distribute a brochure listing its practice areas and lawyer bios to clients and prospective clients on request?

Yes, with the disclaimer. The opinion concluded, under the rules as they stood in 1983, that a firm could produce and distribute a practice-areas brochure to regular or prospective clients on request,…

July 14, 1983

Could a Tennessee law firm operate under a trade name like 'The Right Lawyer, P.C.'?

No. The opinion concluded that the firm name 'The Right Lawyer, P.C.' was false and misleading and constituted a prohibited trade or assumed name under DR 2-102(B). The Board vacated this opinion on S…

April 14, 1983

Could a Tennessee lawyer name a firm 'X (City) Legal Clinic of Y. Z. (Attorney), P.C.'?

Yes, at the time. The opinion concluded that the firm name 'X (name of city) Legal Clinic of Y. Z. (name of Attorney), P.C.' was proper under DR 2-102(B) because it was not false, misleading, or an im…

December 14, 1982

Can a law firm partner also own and run a for-profit management-training company, and if so, what rules apply to it?

Yes, but the training business is law-related, so the partner and the entire firm must follow the Code of Professional Responsibility in operating it. The opinion held the partner may incorporate as s…

December 1, 1982

Can a Tennessee law firm produce and hand out a manual about the firm, covering its policies, facilities, fees, and attorney biographies, with no advertising disclaimer?

No, not as proposed. The opinion concluded that the proposed firm manual, distributed to clients and prospective clients with no disclaimer and no restriction on further distribution, did not fall wit…

August 26, 1981

Can a lawyer contact other purchasers of a defective product to get them to join a class action needing 100 named plaintiffs to certify?

Yes, but only if the client contacts, not solicits, them. The opinion concluded that a lawyer may accept, but may not seek, employment from purchasers contacted for the purpose of obtaining their join…

June 4, 1981

Can a lawyer join a barter system that assigns members a trade broker, requires referral by that broker before services are rendered, and charges a 10% fee on every transaction?

No. The opinion concluded that a barter system requiring approval of every trade by the system office, assigning each member a trade broker, permitting services only after referral by that broker, and…

October 6, 1980

Browse Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee opinions by topic

Legal ethics opinions from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee interpret the rules of professional conduct for working lawyers, in response to inquiries from members and committees. They are not binding like court discipline decisions, but courts and discipline boards treat formal opinions as substantial guidance on how the rules apply. Every opinion above has a plain-English question and short answer, plus a link to the original source on the bar's site.

Ethics opinions from other bars