Names of Attorney and Firm Used in Business Publication Overruling Prior Opinions

107 N.J.L.J. 329
April 16, 1981

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
 
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
 

OPINION 477

Names of Attorney and Firm Used in
Business Publication Overruling Prior Opinions

The inquirer asks whether it would be ethical for one or more members of a law firm to write a column about legal matters for a New Jersey business publication of general circulation, in which the author of the column is identified personally and as a member of the law firm. Our Opinion 122, 90 N.J.L.J. 849 (1967), would appear to disapprove this request since it limits the author to the use of the attorney's name, with no picture or office address permitted. Opinion 245, 95 N.J.L.J. 1151 (1972), prohibits the use of a firm name on a negligence booklet. Opinion 257, 96 N.J.L.J. 759 (1973), restricts the identity to the author's name and the fact that he is a New Jersey lawyer.
All of the foregoing opinions were written prior to Bates v. Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 53 L. Ed. 810 (1977), which laid down new rules governing advertising and the permissible bounds of such advertising. In view of the recent developments, it is our opinion that the author should be able to identify himself as a member of a law firm, and to the extent that the above Opinion 122, 245 and 257 hold to the contrary, they are hereby modified and overruled to permit the use of a firm name. We express no opinion

as to any ethical consideration of the subject matter and statements contained in any articles as so written.
* * *