It was not previously reported here, but in late 2024 the Supreme Court amended the Rules of Professional Conduct to update many of the rules relating to lawyer publicity and advertising. A change that might be particularly relevant to estate and trust practitioners is an amendment to expand the circumstances under which a lawyer might claim to be a “specialist.”
Previously, Pa. Rule of Professional Conduct 7.4 had provided that a lawyer (other than a patent lawyer or admiralty lawyer) could not claim to be a “specialist” unless the lawyer had been certified by an organization approved by the Supreme Court. The general rule that a lawyer may not claim to be a specialist continues under amended Rule 7.2(c), but in addition to the previous exceptions, there is a new exception in Rule 7.2(c)(3):
“(3) a lawyer who is not certified as a specialist as described in paragraphs (1) or (2) above may not claim to be a specialist in a particular field of law unless the lawyer can objectively verify the claim based upon the lawyer’s experience, specialized training or education, and the claim is not otherwise false or misleading in violation of Rule 7.1, see Comment (8);
” (i) a lawyer who communicates a specialty under this paragraph (3) shall include a disclaimer stating that the lawyer is not certified in the claimed specialty;
” (ii) a lawyer may not claim specialization in more than one field of law;”
The Comment 8 referred to in the above rule provides the following explanation:
“(8) Paragraph (c) of this Rule generally permits a lawyer to communicate that the lawyer does or does not practice in a particular area of law. Under paragraph (c)(3), a lawyer is permitted to state that the lawyer ”concentrates in” or is a ”specialist,” practices a ”specialty,” or ”specializes in” particular fields based on the lawyer’s objectively verifiable experience, specialized training or education. Such communications are subject to the ”false and misleading” standard applied in Rule 7.1 to communications concerning a lawyer’s services. Authorizing such objectively verifiable statements comports with constitutional limitations on the regulation of commercial speech. Appropriate bases for a lawyer’s claim of specialization under paragraph (c)(3) may include the proportion of the lawyer’s practice devoted to the specialty, the years of experience practicing the specialty, the continued education acquired pertaining to the specialty, and the recency of the experience or education in the field of specialization.”
A lawyer with appropriate experience or education may therefore claim to be an “estate and trust specialist” even without any formal certification.
“Amendment of Rules 5.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.7 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct; No. 252 Disciplinary Rules Docket” (10/15/2024), 54 Pa.B. 6696 (10/26/2024).
