Create a case brief...In Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 639-640, 105 S. Ct. 2265, 2276, 85 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that where an advertisement was truthful and not misleading as to the facts of the type of litigation and that the attorney was handling such matters for other similarly situated plaintiffs, there was no ethical violation: The advertisement did not promise readers that lawsuits alleging injuries caused by the Dalkon Shield [an intrauterine birth control device] would be successful, nor did it suggest that [the attorney] had any special exper- tise in handling such lawsuits other than his employment in other such litigation. Rather, the advertisement reported the indisputable fact that the Dalkon Shield has spawned an impressive number of lawsuits and advised readers that [the attorney] was currently handling such lawsuits and was willing to represent other women asserting similar claims. The heart of the analysis as to the permissibility of advertising the area of con- centration is the deceptive or misleading standard used in the other adver- tising rules. rela tha knc exp It is extremely important to distinguish between an area of practice as a specialization, (an attorney who chooses to concentrate in a specific area) and a certified specialist in a particular area of law. A certified specialist must apply to her own state in order to be authorized to use such a title. Each state is in control of the areas in which it offers ABA-accredited certifi- cation programs, just as each state is in control of its own bar admission stan- dards. There are a few national certification programs, such as the National Board of Trial Advocacy. These certifying boards all have some elements in common: They all have demanding standards for the applicants; require exten- sive experience in the area of specialization; and require continuing legal edu- cation, an exam, recommendations from judges, and other such credentials. (For detailed information on the areas in which an attorney can become cer- tified, please consult the ABA Standing Committee on Specialization.) Thus, it different for an attorney to say she specializes in one area of the law rather than to claim to be a specialist in a type of practice. The attorney who is very

In Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626,639640,105 S. Ct. 2265, 2276, 85 L. Ed 2d 652 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that where an advertisement was truthful and not misleading as to the facts of the type of litigation and that the attomey was handling such matters for other similarly situated plaintiffs, there was no ethical violation: The advertisement did not promise readers that lawsuits alleging injuries caused by the Dalkon Shield [an intrauterine birth control device] would be successful, nor did it suggest that [the attomey] had any special expertise in handling such lawsuits other than his employment in other such litigation. Rather, the advertisement reported the indisputable fact that the Dalkon Shield has spawned an impressive number of lawsuits and advised readers that [the attorney] was currently handling such lawsuits and was willing to represent other women asserting similar claims. The heart of the analysis as to the permissibility of advertising the area of concentration is the deceptive or misleading standard used in the other advertising rules. It is extremely important to distinguish between an area of practice as a specialization, (an attorney who chooses to concentrate in a specific area) and a certified specialist in a particular area of law. A certified specialist must apply to her own state in order to be authorized to use such a title. Each state is in control of the areas in which it offers ABA-accredited certiffcation programs, just as each state is in control of its own bar admission standards. There are a few national certification programs, such as the National Board of Trial Advocacy. These certifying boards all have some elements in common: They all have demanding standards for the applicants; require extensive experience in the area of specialization; and require continuing legal education, an exam, recommendations from judges, and other such credentials. (Por detailed information on the areas in which an attorney can become certified, please consult the ABA Standing Committee on Specialization.) Thus, it is very different for an attomey to say she specializes in one area of the law rather than to claim to be a specialist in a type of practice. The attomey who concentrates in an area of law should make it very clear that she is not a specialist certiffed by any state or national body. To blur the line between the two is to invite an ethical infraction regarding the advertisement of the lawyer's services. In 1990, the United States Supreme Court decided that an attorney had a First Amendment constitutional right to advertise his certification in a specialized area. The Court opined that while opinions as to the quality of an attorney's legal work are impermissible under the ethical rules, a designation from an accredited certifying body as to the background qualifications of an attorney are not, as they are verifiable statements that can indicate a certain level of quality that has been achieved. The state bar that opposed the attorney's right to list this credential on his letterhead contended that the statement may be misleading to potential clients. To the extent that potentially misleading statements of private certification or specialization could confuse consumers, a State might consider screening certifying organizations or requiring a disclaimer about the certifying organization or the standards of a specialty. A State may not, however, completely ban statements that are not actually or inherently misleading, such as certification as a specialist by bona fide organizations such as NBTA