After much controversy, the rules of professional conduct 7.1 effective November 2, 2009 discussing a listing as a Super Lawyer, authorized such listing so long as the following requirements are met:
"A truthful communication that the lawyer has received an honor or accolade is not misleading or impermissibly comparative for purposes of this Rule if: (1) the conferrer has made inquiry into the attorney's fitness; (2) the conferrer does not issue such an honor or accolade for a price; and (3) a truthful, plain language description of the standard or methodology upon which the honor or accolade is based is available for inspection either as part of the communication itself or by reference to a convenient, publicly available source."
This opinion was clarified by Opinion 42 Issue December 16, 2010 which requires language similar to the following so that the word "Super Lawyer" does not imply a comparison to other lawyers.
An appropriate listing is: "Mr. Smith is on a list called Super Lawyers for the year 2011. Such list is prepared by Thomson Reuters. The selection process includes peer nominations, a blue ribbon panel review and independent research of candidates. Such list does not imply a comparison to other lawyers, but is compiled by the above process. This advertisement has not been approved by the Supreme Court."
Therefore, a listing of one as a "Super Lawyer" is unethical unless the above qualification is made.
It would appear that these opinions are based upon the First Amendment rule of the public to be informed rather than the First Amendment right of an attorney to state his qualifications.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and each person may have unique facts for which legal consultation may be necessary.
© December 2011, Post 174
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
We look forward to your comments and encourage you to comment often.