Link to original WordPerfect Document
3 N.J.L. 162
January 24, 1994
136 N.J.L.J. 375
January 24, 1994
COMMITTEE ON ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
OPINION 16
Paralegals - Identification
on Law Firm Letterhead or in
Advertisements
(Supersedes ACPE Opinion 296)See footnote 1
1
The Committee has received an inquiry concerning a large
personal injury law firm's newspaper advertisement which invites
women who have had breast implants to call one of its attorneys or
"[Jane Doe], our paralegal who has had medical experience." The
inquirer asks whether lawyers may include the names of their
paralegals in their advertisements and, if so, on their letterhead.
In Opinion 296, 98 N.J.L.J. 105 (1975) the Advisory Committee
on Professional Ethics, which up until this Committee was formally
created on July 1, 1987 had jurisdiction over advertising and
letterhead, held that it was unethical for an attorney to include
on the law firm's letterhead the name of a full-time investigator
or paralegal. The Advisory Committee relied upon American Bar
Association Standing Committee on Professional Ethics Informal
Opinion 619 (1962) which, quoting Drinker, Legal Ethics (1953) 228,
refused to allow a secretary's name to appear on a lawyer's
letterhead stating:
A lawyer's letterhead may not carry the name of a
client or of a patent agent associate, non-lawyer, notary
or engineer or clerk or student or other layman, or give
the names of references, or state that a layman's
association is associated with him in handling
collections.
The Advisory Committee also cited ABA Informal Opinion 845
(1965), which held that the inclusion of a name on a letterhead
with the designation "office manager" would be improper, and
Informal Opinion 1000 (1967), which cited both Informal Opinions
619 and 845, supra, and held that "it would be improper to list
your salaried investigator on your firm letterhead as 'Staff
Investigator' or in any other manner."
DR 2-102(A)(4), the predecessor rule to RPC 7.5, stipulated
that an attorney or firm could not use any letterhead that was not
of prescribed content and dignified form. Additionally, DR 2-101
generally inveighed against self-laudation, and including an
investigator's name and title on letterhead would have had a self-
laudatory effect as it would "impress upon those seeing the
letterhead the size, importance and efficiency of the firm... ."
ABA Informal Opinion 845, supra. Therefore, the inclusion on
letterhead of the names and titles of individuals in the firm other
than attorneys was prohibited.
DR 2-101 and DR 2-102 have since been replaced by RPC 7.5(a)
and RPC 7.1(a), respectively. RPC 7.5(a) provides that "[a] lawyer
shall not use a firm name, letterhead, or other professional
designation that violates RPC 7.1." RPC 7.1 in pertinent part
provides:
(a) A lawyer shall not make false or misleading
communications about the lawyer, the lawyer's services,
or any matter in which the lawyer has or seeks a
professional involvement. A communication is false or
misleading if it:
...
(3) compares the lawyer's service with other lawyers'
services[.]
The argument has been made that the inclusion of the names and
titles of individuals other than attorneys is inherently
comparative and potentially misleading as to the "size, importance
and efficiency of the firm." ABA Informal Opinion 845, supra.
However, we believe that the benefits to be derived from this type
of communication in terms of the information it provides far
outweigh the risks normally associated with comparative statements.
This is particularly true because we are not here concerned
with an obviously comparative statement such as "the best law firm
in New Jersey." The underlying message, if there is one, is much
more subtle and, according to ABA Informal Opinion 845, misleading.
Of course, this type of message can cut both ways. For example,
while some potential clients may be interested in the economies the
presence of paralegals may produce, others may fear that their
cases will not actually be handled by an attorney and that they
will therefore be at a disadvantage. However, we believe the fact
that such information can be interpreted in different ways
mitigates in favor of it being permitted on letterhead and in
advertisements. Its presence will help consumers make more
informed choices of counsel.
Additionally, the respect accorded to paralegals and the work they
perform has increased immeasurably over the last 10 to 15 years.
As the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics stated in Opinion
647, 126 N.J.L.J. 1525 (1990):
It cannot be gainsaid that the utilization of
paralegals has become, over the last 10 years, accepted,
acceptable, important and indeed, necessary to the
practice of law. Lawyers, law firms and, more
importantly, clients benefit greatly by their work.
Those people who perform paraprofessionally are educated
to do so. They are trained and truly professional. They
are diligent and carry on their functions in a dignified,
proper, professional manner. They understand ethical
inhibitions and prohibitions. Lawyers assign them work
expecting them to respect confidences which they obtain
and to comport themselves in the best traditions of those
who serve in the legal arena.
The Advisory Committee then addressed the inquiry whether
paralegals employed by and working under the direct supervision of
an attorney could be permitted to carry business cards, so long as
the name of the attorney or law firm appeared on the card and
issuance was authorized by the attorney and/or law firm. Holding
that attorneys and/or law firms could issue business cards to
paralegal employees, the Committee stated:
Giving to them the ability of clearly identifying
themselves and for whom they work can only better serve
their employers and clients. The business card, as is
true in every area where business cards are used, serves
to define the status of the person presenting that card
and has the desired effect of eliminating confusion. Id.
The same is or should be true of letterhead. Paralegal
employees are already permitted to sign correspondence on a
lawyer's or law firm's letterhead so long as the correspondence is
confined to the gathering or dissemination and filing of routine
information or documents and the paralegal's status is clearly set
forth. Opinion 611, 121 N.J.L.J. 301 (1988). The inclusion of the
paralegal's name and title on the letterhead will only serve to
eliminate any possible confusion by defining and reinforcing the
author's position with the firm.
Recent ABA Informal Opinion 1527 (1989) provides that non-
lawyer support personnel, including paralegals, may be listed on a
law firm's letterhead and reiterates previous opinions that approve
of paralegals having business cards. See e.g. ABA Informal Opinion
1185 (1971) (the listing must not be false or misleading and "must
make it clear that the support personnel who are listed are not
lawyers."). The opinions of several states' ethics committees are
in accord.See footnote 2
2
It should also be pointed out that in its Comment to Guideline
5, ABA Model Guidelines for Legal Assistant Services (May 1991),
the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Assistants suggested that in
light of Peel v. Illinois Reg. and Disciplinary Commn, 496 U.S. 91,
110 S. Ct. 2281, 1190 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1990), it may be that a
restriction on letterhead identification of legal assistants that
is not deceptive and clearly identifies the legal assistant's
status violates the First Amendment rights of the lawyer. However,
we need not reach the constitutional question in resolving this
matter.
At this time, we limit the scope of this opinion to the
inclusion on attorneys' letterhead of the names of paralegals as
opposed to other non-lawyer support personnel. For the purposes of
this opinion, we adopt the definition of a paralegal which may be
found in the New Jersey State Bar Association Bylaws, Article 1,
Paragraph 2, Section (c):
A paralegal/legal assistant who is qualified through
education, training, or work experience, is employed or
retained by a lawyer, law office, governmental agency or
other entity in a capacity or function which involves the
performance, under the direction and supervision of a
lawyer, of specifically-delegated substantive legal work,
which work, for the most part, requires sufficient
knowledge of legal concepts that, absent the paralegal or
legal assistant, the lawyer would perform the task.See footnote 3
3
In light of the foregoing, we now hold that attorneys may
identify paralegals by name and title on their letterhead and in
their advertisements.
* * *
Footnote: 1 1Pursuant to R. 1:19A-2(a), adopted June 26, 1987, to be
effective July 1, 1987, the Committee on Attorney Advertising has
exclusive jurisdiction to consider requests for advisory opinions
concerning the application and interpretation of Rules of
Professional Conduct 7.1 through 7.5, excluding RPC 7.3(c), (d),
(e) and (f). Opinion 296, 98 N.J.L.J. 105 (1975), was issued by
the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics 9 1/2 years before
the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct and 12 1/2 years
before the creation of the Committee on Attorney Advertising.
Therefore, the instant opinion supersedes Opinion 296 and is
binding on all members of the bar. R. 1:19A-3(c).
Footnote: 2 2States which permit attorneys to list the names of paralegals
and/or other non-lawyer support personnel on their letterhead, if
the listing is not deceptive and the paralegal's status is clearly
identified, include Connecticut, Recommendation 12 and Opinion 85-
17 (1985) (listing helps eliminate client confusion about the
status of employees who speak or correspond with them); Florida,
Professional Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion 86-4 (1986) (listing
of names and titles of paralegals and legal assistants permitted);
Hawaii, Formal Opinion 78-8-19 (1984) (listing of names and titles
of paralegals or legal assistants permitted provided information is
not false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive); Illinois, State
Bar Association Advisory Opinion 81-4 (undated) and Advisory
Opinion 87-1 (1987) (non-legal personnel may be listed if clearly
identified as such); Mississippi, Ethics Opinion 93 (1984) (listing
of names and paralegals or other non-legal employees permitted
provided non-legal status is clearly indicated); Virginia Ethics
Opinion 970 (1987) (listing of name and title of law firm's chief
investigator permitted so long as listing includes affirmative
statement that investigator is not licensed to practice law); and
Wisconsin Ethics Opinion E-85-6 (1985) (listing of legal
assistants' names permitted; their employment is relevant to the
lawyer's ability to provide legal services).
Footnote: 3 3It is our understanding that the New Jersey Supreme Court's
Committee on Paralegal Education and Regulation is currently
considering a proposed revision of this definition. However, the
proposed revision, if adopted, would in no way alter the substance
or scope of this opinion.
This archive is a service of
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden