| | |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 45S00-0301-DI-13
ANONYMOUS )
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 45S00-0301-DI-14
ANONYMOUS )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
March 4, 2003
Per Curiam
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission charged the two
attorneys subject to this action with violating the Rules of Professional
Conduct for Attorneys at Law by advertising themselves as “specialists”
when they had not been certified as such. Purusant to Ind.Admission and
Discipline Rule 23(11), the respondent attorneys have agreed with the
Commission that they should be privately reprimanded for their faulty
advertisement. We conclude today that a private reprimand is appropriate
in this case, and therefore accept the Statement of Circumstances and
Conditional Agreement for Discipline the parties have tendered to us for
approval in each case.
The facts underlying the present agreement are as follow: The
respondents practice law together. They placed an advertisement for their
law firm, announcing the addition of one of the respondents as a new member
of the firm, in the 2001-2002 edition of a small, privately-owned directory
service published in northwest Indiana. The ad prominently included the
words “Elder Law Specialists.”
In order for an attorney in this state to hold herself out to the
public as a “specialist,” the attorney must be certified as such pursuant
to the provisions of Admis.Disc.R. 30. That rule provides, in relevant
part:
Section 5. Qualification Standards for Certification.
a) To be recognized as certified in a field of law in the State
of Indiana, the lawyer must be duly admitted to the bar of
this state, in active status, and in good standing,
throughout the period for which the certification is granted.
b) The lawyer must be certified by an [independent certifying
organization] approved by [the Commission for Continuing
Legal Education], and must be in full compliance with the
Indiana Bar Certification Review Plan, the rules and policies
of the ICO and the rules and policies of CLE.
Section 6. Privileges Conferred and Limitations Imposed.
a) A lawyer who is certified under this rule may communicate the fact
that the lawyer is certified by the ICO as a specialist in the
area of law involved. The lawyer shall not represent, either
expressly or impliedly, that the lawyer’s certification has been
individually recognized by the Indiana Supreme Court or CLE, or by
an entity other than the ICO.
The respondents were not certified as “Elder Law Specialists” pursuant
to Admis.Disc.R. 30. Because the respondents advertised themselves as
specialists when in fact they had not been so certified, we find that they
violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 7.1(b) by using or participating in
the use of a form of public communication containing a false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim. Within
the non-exclusive list of such statements or claims is any statement or
implication that “a lawyer is certified or recognized as a specialist other
than as permitted by Rule 7.4.” Prof.Cond.R. 7.1(c)(3). Rule 7.4
provides, in relevant part, that a lawyer may communicate that the lawyer
is certified as a specialist in a field of practice when the certification
and communication are authorized under Admis.Disc.R. 30. Prof.Cond.R.
7.4(b). A lawyer is not prohibited from communicating the fact that the
lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law, but may not
express or imply any particular expertise except as otherwise provided in
Prof.Cond.R. 7.4(b). Prof.Cond.R. 7.4(a). The purpose of this formalized
system of specialist recognition is stated in Admis.Disc.R. 30:
(a) [To] enhance public access to and promote efficient and economic
delivery of appropriate legal services;
(b) assure that lawyers claiming special competence in a field of law
have satisfied uniform criteria appropriate to the field;
(c) facilitate the education, training and certification of lawyers in
limited fields of law;
(d) facilitate lawyer access to certifying organizations;
(e) expedite consultation and referral; and
(f) encourage lawyer self-regulation and organizational diversity in
defining and implementing certification of lawyers in limited fields
of law.
In support of their assertion that a private reprimand is an
appropriate sanction for the misconduct here, the respondents and the
Commission note that the advertisement appeared in a publication with an
extremely limited audience and that the ad generated no legal work for the
respondents. Further, after learning of the grievance generated by their
ad, the respondents promptly discontinued its use, leading us to conclude
that their violation of Prof.Cond.R. 7.1 here was not intentional. We
also note that this Court has imposed a private reprimand for almost
identical misconduct. See, e.g., Matter of Anonymous, 689 N.E.2d 434 (Ind.
1997) (lawyer advertised on radio that he was a “personal injury
specialist”; violation of the rule found to be “unintentional.”); Cf.
Matter of Wilkinson, 770 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. 2002) (public reprimand imposed
pursuant to agreed resolution for lawyer who advertised in yellow pages as
“Bankruptcy & Debt Specialist”). In light of these considerations, we
conclude that the respondents should be privately reprimanded.
Costs of these proceedings are assessed against the respondents.