Search


Powered by Google

Casemaker

Not a CBA Member? Join Now!

Most Viewed

Ethics Opinion 5: Withdrawn 7/93 (Announcement Cards Implying Specialty, 04/11/59)

The following Formal Opinion was written by
the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar Association

  [Formal Ethics Opinions are issued for advisory purposes only and are not in any way binding on the Colorado Supreme Court, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, the Attorney Regulation Committee, or the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel and do not provide protection against disciplinary actions.]

5 ANNOUNCEMENT CARDS IMPLYING SPECIALTY
Adopted April 11, 1959.
This opinion was withdrawn by the Ethics Committee on July 24, 1993.

 

 

Syllabus

An announcement card designating or implying a specialty may be mailed only to local lawyers and not to any other persons. It should be brief and dignified and should not contain self-laudatory statements.

An announcement card designating or implying a specialty, even though mailed only to local lawyers and not to any other persons, is improper if it is in a form which constitutes a statement or representation of special experience or expertness.

Facts

A lawyer sends the following announcement card in the mail:

John Doe
Former Attorney for the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission
Announces
The Opening of Offices for the General Practice of Law
Address
Telephone Number
Specializing in Motor Carrier and Utility Law
Date

Opinion

For the same reasons stated in Opinion No. 4, the Committee is of the opinion that this card violates Canon 27, unless mailed only to local lawyers and not to clients or other persons.

The card is substantially similar to the one referred to in Opinion No. 4, with the added element of designation of a former government position, that is, "former attorney for the Colorado Public Utilities Commission." If the card were mailed to persons other than local lawyers, this added element would be a further reason why so doing would be unethical. See ABA Opinion 264. But, once again, the Committee feels that, if restricted to local lawyers the card would not be improper. Obviously though, as was the case in Opinion No. 4, the wording of the card indicates that it was probably mailed to other persons.