Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op. 21-05

This nonbinding advisory opinion is issued by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct
in response to a prospective or hypothetical question regarding the application of
ethics rules applicable to Ohio judges and lawyers. The Ohio Board of Professional
Conduct is solely responsible for the content of this advisory opinion, and the advice
contained in this opinion does not reflect and should not be construed as reflecting the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Questions regarding this advisory opinion
should be directed to the staff of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.
OPINION 2021-05
Issued June 11, 2021
Not Current – Subsequent Rule Amendment to Prof.Cond.R. 7.4 eff. Apr. 15, 2024
Communication of a Lawyer Specialization in a Field of Law Not Designated
by the Supreme Court
SYLLABUS: A lawyer may state or imply that she or he is a specialist in a field of law
only if that field of law has been designated as an area of lawyer specialization by the
Supreme Court. A communication by a lawyer that he or she is a specialist in a field of
law not designated by the Supreme Court is misleading.

65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431
Telephone: 614.387.9370 Fax: 614.387.9379
www.bpc.ohio.gov
PATRICIA A. WISE
CHAIR
RICHARD A. DOVE
DIRECTOR
HON. D. CHRIS COOK
VICE- CHAIR
D. ALLAN ASBURY
SENIOR COUNSEL
KRISTI R. MCANAUL
COUNSEL
OPINION 2021-05
Issued June 11, 2021
Not Current – Subsequent Rule Amendment to Prof.Cond.R. 7.4 eff. Apr. 15, 2024
Communication of a Lawyer Specialization in a Field of Law Not Designated
by the Supreme Court
SYLLABUS: A lawyer may state or imply that she or he is a specialist in a field of law
only if that field of law has been designated as an area of lawyer specialization by the
Supreme Court. A communication by a lawyer that he or she is a specialist in a field of
law not designated by the Supreme Court is misleading.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
May a lawyer state or imply that she or he is a specialist in a particular field of law
if the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization approved by the
Supreme Court Commission on Certification of Attorneys as Specialists but the field of
law has not been designated by the Supreme Court as an area of lawyer specialization in
Ohio?
APPLICABLE RULES: Prof.Cond.R. 7.1, 7.4
OPINION: The requesting lawyer represents several lawyers in an Ohio law firm that
concentrates its practice in the area of truck safety law. One or more lawyers in the firm
is certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (“NBTA”) in the area of “truck
accident law.” The law firm wishes to advertise with the statement “Lawyers NBTA
board-certified in Truck Accident Law” without reference to the Supreme Court of Ohio
or its Commission on the Certification of Attorneys as Specialists (“commission”).

Op. 2021-05 2
Designation of Areas of Lawyer Specialization
Pursuant to its constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law in Ohio, the
Supreme Court has adopted rules regarding the designation of areas of lawyer
specialization. See Oh.Const.IV, Sec.2(B)(1)(g); Gov.Bar R. XIV. The Court has established
the Commission on the Certification of Attorneys as Specialists to assist the Court in this
task. The commission has two primary responsibilities: (1) it accredits organizations that,
in turn, certify individual lawyers as specialists; and (2) it recommends to the Supreme
Court, either sua sponte or upon petition, fields of law for designation as specialty areas.
The commission performs these tasks pursuant to standards promulgated by the
Supreme Court in Gov. Bar R. XIV and accreditation standards adopted by the
commission.
If a lawyer is certified by an accredited organization as a specialist in field of law
and if that field of law is designated by the Supreme Court as a specialty area, the lawyer
may hold himself or herself out as a specialist. As of the date of this opinion, the
commission has accredited four organizations, including NBTA, to certify specialists, and
the Supreme Court has designated 18 fields of law as specialty areas.
Although “truck accident law” is offered by NBTA as a certified specialty, the
Supreme Court has not designated “truck accident law” as an area of lawyer
specialization. In researching this opinion, the Board was advised that a petition to
designate “truck accident law” as an area of specialization was denied by the commission
in 2019.1
Lawyers’ Communication of a Specialty
As noted above, a lawyer is permitted to communicate that he or she is a specialist
in an area of law if the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by a certifying organization
in an area of law designated by the Supreme Court. Prof.Cond.R. 7.4(e); Gov.Bar R.
XIV(C)(1). Conversely, a lawyer may not communicate a specialty in an area of law that
has not been designated by the Supreme Court. Prof.Cond.R. 7.4(e).
1 Consequently, the commission declined to recommend a specialty in “truck accident law” to the Supreme
Court.

Op. 2021-05 3
The intent of the rule and underlying regulatory process have remained largely
unchanged since 1993. The former Code of Professional Responsibility stated "[a] lawyer
who is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law pursuant to the Supreme Court
Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio may hold himself or herself out as a specialist
only in accordance with those rules.” DR 2-105(4) (emphasis added.) Consequently, the
Board concludes that the communication of a specialty offered by an accredited
organization, but not formally designated as a specialty by the Supreme Court, is contrary
to the prohibition that a lawyer not state or imply a specialization under Prof.Cond.R.
7.4(e).
Misleading Communication of a Specialty
The communication by a lawyer of an area of specialization that has been certified
by an accredited organization, but that has not been designated by the Supreme Court,
also implicates Prof.Cond.R. 7.1. Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making or
using a false, misleading, or nonverifiable communication about the lawyer. “A truthful
statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a
reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s
services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.” Prof.Cond.R. 7.1, cmt.[1].
See also, Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth, 93 Ohio St.3d 173, 2001-Ohio-1308 (lawyer
disbarred for misconduct that included holding himself out as a specialist in an area of
law not designated by the Supreme Court.)
A statement that the lawyers in the firm are certified by the NBTA in the area of
“truck accident law” is true, but misleading because it implies that the area of law is one
designated by the Supreme Court as a specialty in Ohio through the same regulatory
process the Court has utilized for 18 other designated specializations. In re R. M. J. (1982),
455 U.S. 191, 203, 102 S.Ct. 929 (misleading advertising may be prohibited entirely) cited
in Peel v. Atty. Registration & Disciplinary Comm. (1990), 496 U.S. 91, 110 S.Ct. 2281.
Prospective Ohio clients expect that Ohio lawyers advertising a specialty are permitted
to do so based on the Supreme Court’s formal designation of the area of specialization.
There exists a substantial likelihood that a potential Ohio client could erroneously
conclude that communication of the NBTA certification in “truck accident law” also
means the specialty has been designated by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Board
advises that a lawyer should not state or imply that he or she is a certified specialist unless

Op. 2021-05 4
and until the area of specialization is designated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its
constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law.