Can a West Virginia lawyer print 'Specializing In' a list of practice areas on a business card?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer asked the Committee about the propriety of a business card that read "Specializing In: Social Security, Workmen's Compensation, Personal Injury, Department of Labor, Black Lung, Medical Negligence." The Committee analyzed the card under DR 2-105(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which allowed a lawyer to hold himself out as a specialist only if certified by the authority having jurisdiction over specialization under state law, and only in accordance with that authority's rules.

The Committee observed that the West Virginia State Bar had issued no rules relating to specialization and had never established any procedure for certifying lawyers as specialists. On that basis it was improper for a lawyer to hold himself out as a specialist, with narrow exceptions the Code allowed for patent, trademark, and admiralty designations on letterhead and office signs.

The Committee added that the amendments to the Code considered by the American Bar Association in light of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 97 S. Ct. 2691 (1977), would not alter the effect of present DR 2-105(A)(4), that the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals had not so amended the Code, and that the card's claim of special competence would be prohibited even under the proposed amendments. The Committee noted that some states allowed a lawyer to limit his practice so long as there was no indication that he had special competence or had been certified as a specialist. It concluded that the card violated DR 2-105(A)(4) because it implied that the lawyer had special competence in the fields listed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1977, before West Virginia replaced its Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 1, 1989, and before later rule revisions, including the comprehensive 2015 amendments. Its treatment of specialization claims reflects the pre-modern advertising rules that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) and subsequent rule revisions substantially changed. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any rule, prohibition, or characterization mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a West Virginia lawyer call himself a "specialist" in 1977?

A: No, with narrow exceptions. The opinion stated that because the State Bar had issued no rules on specialization and no certification procedure, it was improper for a lawyer to hold himself out as a specialist, except for the patent, trademark, and admiralty designations the Code specifically allowed.

Q: Why did the card listing practice areas violate the rule?

A: The opinion concluded the card violated DR 2-105(A)(4) because the "Specializing In" heading implied that the lawyer had special competence in the listed fields, which the rule prohibited absent certification by an authorized body.

Q: Did the Bates decision change the result?

A: No. The opinion stated that the amendments the ABA was considering in light of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona would not alter the effect of DR 2-105(A)(4), that West Virginia had not adopted them, and that a claim of special competence would be prohibited even under the proposed amendments.

Q: Could a lawyer say he limits his practice to certain fields?

A: The opinion observed that in some states it is not improper to limit one's practice to one or more fields of law, so long as there is no indication or implication that the lawyer has special competence or has been certified as a specialist in those fields.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-105(A)(4) of the West Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, which permitted a lawyer to hold himself out as a specialist only if certified by the authority having jurisdiction over specialization under state law and only in accordance with that authority's rules. It noted the Code's separate allowances, on letterhead and office signs, for lawyers admitted before the United States Patent Office and for lawyers engaged in trademark or admiralty practice. The Committee read the rule against the backdrop that West Virginia had adopted no specialization rules and no certification procedure.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as cited):

• DR 2-105(A)(4) (a lawyer may hold himself out as a specialist only if certified by the authority having jurisdiction over specialization, and only per that authority's rules)
• DR 2-102(A)(6) (referenced as an exception within DR 2-105(A))

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 97 S. Ct. 2691 (1977) (lawyer advertising; the Committee noted the pending ABA amendments considered in its light would not alter DR 2-105(A)(4))

See also

• WVSB Ethics Op. 77-11: Specialization announcement by a lawyer-CPA
• WVSB Ethics Op. 97-01: Trade name for advertising purposes
• WVSB Ethics Op. 90-03: Lawyer referral and advertising programs

Source

• Landing page: https://wvodc.org/Legal-Ethics-Opinion
• Original PDF: https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/66a7ea7df10bdc631eae4495.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BAR JOURNAL
Winter, 1977
Volume 3, Number 4

SPECIALIZATION

LEGAL ETHICS INQUIRY 77-8

I have your letter inquiring as to the propriety of your business card which contains the following:

Specializing In:

Social Security
Workmen's Compensation
Personal Injury
Department of Labor
Black Lung
Medical Negligence

Your attention is directed to DR 2-105(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides as follows:

A lawyer who is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law or law practice by the authority having jurisdiction under state law over the subject of specialization by lawyers may hold himself out as such specialist but only in accordance with the rules prescribed by that authority.

The West Virginia State Bar has issued no rules relating to specialization and has never established any procedure for certifying lawyers as specialists in any particular field. Accordingly, it is improper for a lawyer to hold himself out as a specialist except a lawyer admitted to practice before the United States Patent Office may use the designation "patents," "patent attorney" or "patent lawyer," or any combination of those terms, on his letterhead and office sign. A lawyer engaged in the trademark practice may use the designation "trademarks," "trademark attorney" or "trademark lawyer," or any combination of those terms, on his letterhead and office sign, and a lawyer engaged in the admiralty practice may use the designation "admiralty," "proctor in admiralty" or "admiralty lawyer," or any combination of those terms, on his letterhead and office sign.

The amendments to the Code of Professional Responsibility considered by the American Bar Association in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 97 S. Ct. 2691 (1977), would not alter the effect of present DR 2-105(A)(4). The Code of Professional Responsibility has not been so amended by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Furthermore, your card indicates you have special competence in the fields mentioned. This is prohibited even under proposed amendments to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In some states it is not improper to limit one's practice to one or more fields of law so long as in so doing there is no indication or implication that the lawyer has special competence in a particular area of the law or has been officially recognized or certified as a specialist in those fields.

It is the opinion of the Committee that your card violates DR 2-105(A)(4) in that it implies that you have special competence in the fields of law mentioned thereon.