Restrictions Eased on Use of 'Expertise' and 'Specialized' in NJ Lawyer Ads
"In sum, the committee finds that accurate self-described specialization or expertise, without more, is not necessarily misleading and, if true, may be included in attorney advertising," the committee said. "Lawyers have the burden of demonstrating the necessary education, training and experience to substantiate such claims."
November 13, 2018 at 11:28 AM
3 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court's Committee on Attorney Advertising has relaxed the rules on descriptive terms that lawyers can use in their advertisements, though lawyers may be required to back up their claims.
Phrases that previously had been barred—such as “specialist,” “specialized,” “specializing” or “expertise,” can now be used—according to CAA Opinion 45, which was released on Nov. 8.
Lawyers still may not use the phrases “expert” or “certified” unless they have been certified by the court by an accredited committee of the American Bar Association, the report says.
The CAA was asked to review the matter after one firm complained that another law firm described itself as having an “expertise” in tax law. The CAA noted that the principal lawyer in that firm had an LL.M. in tax law, had been a lawyer for the Internal Revenue Service and had 30 years of experience in tax law.
“After revisiting the issue in light of recent out-of-state First Amendment decisions in advertising, the committee has now determined that lawyers may use the terms 'expertise,' 'specialize,' and 'specialist' in advertising provided that the terms are accurate and the lawyers can demonstrate the necessary education, training and experience to substantiate the claim,” the committee said.
Florham Park solo Sheryl Gorski, the chairwoman of the committee, said the committee tried to come up with a series of accommodations that were appropriate.
“We're very concerned when attorneys use comparative language,” Gorski said.
However, she said, other states have started to adopted less-restrictive language due to First Amendment challenges.
Any lawyer who uses any of those now-acceptable phrases in their advertisements, and who faces a challenge, will be required to demonstrate that he or she has the requisite education, training or on-the-job experience to substantiate the claims.
“In sum, the committee finds that accurate self-described specialization or expertise, without more, is not necessarily misleading and, if true, may be included in attorney advertising,” the committee said.
“Lawyers have the burden of demonstrating the necessary education, training and experience to substantiate such claims,” the committee said.
The committee's move comes a decade after the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a prohibition on attorneys advertising their selections in Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other comparative ratings guides.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250