In May of last year I criticized a decision by a Louisiana Hearing Committee recommending a reprimand for an attorney based on the fact that his web page stated that he specializes in maritime personal injury and death cases. Fortunately, just a few days ago, the Louisiana Supreme Court showed some common sense and rejected that recommendation.
But let's back up to the beginning of the story. As you probably know rules of professional conduct typically ban lawyers from stating, or implying, that they are "specialists" in any particular field of law unless the lawyer can show he or she has actually been certified as such, and there are very few such specialty certifications. For this reason, a number of jurisdictions have issued opinions disciplining attorneys who have stated in their ads that they "specialize in" a particular area of the law.
My problem with all this is that I see a clear distinction between claiming to be a certified specialist and simply using the English language verb "to specialize" in a sentence. The verb, which, I looked up in the dictionary, means "to concentrate one's efforts in a special activity, field, or practice." You don't have to be certified to practice bankruptcy law and if an attorney's main area of practice is bankruptcy law he or she, in fact, specializes in bankruptcy relief. Can't a lawyer advertise that they specialize in a particular area of the law anymore? How about saying "specializing in criminal defense" or "specializing in representing victims of accidents" and so on. Assuming it is true that this is their main area of practice, why bother spending time and money in a disciplinary process?
I made this argument back in 2011 in reaction to a case from Indiana (here) and then again to the news about the case in Louisiana (here).
Thankfully, the Louisiana Supreme Court made the right decision and reversed.
In this case, called In re Kearney Soniat Du Fossat Loughlin, the attorney created a website to promote his law firm which contained a statement saying the firm is a "litigation firm specializing in maritime personal injury and death cases.” Based on this statement, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) filed one count of formal charges alleging the statement violated several rules.
The matter proceeded to a formal hearing at the conclusion of which the hearing committee determined that the language on respondent’s website stated or implied that his firm was a “specialist” in maritime personal injury and death cases, although such a specialization has not been recognized or approved in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the Louisiana Board of Legal Specialization. Accordingly, although the committee found that there was no evidence of actual injury caused by respondent’s violation, and little potential for injury was shown, it recommended that the attorney be publicly reprimanded, and that he be required to attend a continuing legal education program on lawyer advertising. This recommendation was later affirmed by the disciplinary board.
On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, however, finding that the attorney's actions caused no harm to the public and that the attorney did not have a culpable state of mind. Thus, the Court found that his actions did not rise to the level of sanctionable misconduct and dismissed the charges. You can read the full opinion here.
This is the right result, although I wish the Court had clarified the notion of the "culpable state of mind" necessary for the conduct to constitute a violation of the rules. I interpret the ruling to mean that claiming that one specializes in a certain area of the law is not sanctionable conduct unless it is shown that it was done with the intent to make people believe one has a specific "title", "degree" or "certification" of some sort. In other words, with the intent to deceive or mislead the public. Since simply stating a true statement using the verb "to specialize" as part of a sentence, without more, does not support that conclusion, the allegation in the case is not enough to support the imposition of discipline. That's how I would have resolved the case, and how I hope the decision is interpreted in the future.
