Can a law firm advertise the combined years of practice of its partners as a single firm experience figure?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether the Rules allow a firm to advertise that it has been representing the rights of individuals, clients, and injured parties for twenty-nine years, where that figure is the cumulative number of years of practice between the inquiring lawyer and a law partner.

The committee concluded that this language would violate RPC 7.1, because it would be materially misleading by omission: the phrasing implies a degree of longevity and experience greater than the firm actually has. The committee added that it does not follow that the only permissible way to communicate a firm's experience is by specifying the number of years each attorney has been in practice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a two-partner firm advertise their combined years as the firm's years of experience?

A: The committee concluded that advertising a combined figure (there, twenty-nine years) violates RPC 7.1 as materially misleading by omission, because it implies more longevity and experience than the firm actually has.

Q: Is the only fix to list each attorney's years separately?

A: No. The committee said it does not follow that specifying the number of years each attorney has practiced is the only permissible way to communicate the firm's experience.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services, ABA Model Rule 7.1), which bars false or misleading communications. The committee treated a cumulative-years figure as misleading by omission because it implied a single firm or lawyer had practiced for the combined total.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Washington RPC 7.1

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1186: Advertising as an 'Expert'
• WA Ethics Op. 1272: Advertising as a 'Specialist'
• WA Ethics Op. 1412: Advertising Past Verdicts

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1119

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1672
Year Issued: 1996
RPC(s): RPC 7.1
Subject: Advertising; use of cumulative number of years of practice of law partners

The Committee discussed your inquiry regarding whether the Rules of Professional Conduct allow you to claim in your advertisement that your firm has been representing the rights of individuals/clients/injured parties for twenty-nine years, which is the cumulative number of years of practice between you and your law partner. It was the Committee's opinion that this language would violate RPC 7.1, as it would be materially misleading by omission because the language implies a degree of longevity/experience greater than actually exists. However, it does not necessarily follow from this conclusion that the only permissible way to communicate a firm's experience is by specifying the number of years each attorney has been in practice.