State Ethics Rulings Archives

Ashley Belleau has added a new title to her name: President.

In late September, Bellleau, a business litigator at Montgomery, Barnett, Brown, Read, Hammond & Mintz in New Orleans, was installed as the new head of the Federal Bar Association (FBA).

"Over the next year and beyond," Belleau told Super Lawyers, "I look forward to working with the FBA's leadership to serve the organization's mission of strengthening the federal legal system and administration of justice by serving the interests and needs of the federal practitioner, both public and private, and the federal judiciary and the public they serve. To accomplish this mission, we are taking the lead on issues that face federal practitioners and the bench. One major issue is the high number of judicial vacancies that currently exist in certain circuit and district courts, which can delay cases being heard in a timely fashion. The FBA is also working with Judge Jay Zainey to bring the SOLACE program [in which members of the legal community help those in need] to national prominence."

The role will certainly keep her busy, not that it sounds like she minds.

"I love the practice of law, and bar associations such as the FBA keep the practice of law enjoyable and improve the legal system as a whole, and that that is very satisfying," she says.

Alaska is the latest state to approve the use of one’s Super Lawyers selection in advertising.

State bar association Ethics Opinion 2009-2, states in part:

Lawyers and law firms may refer to a listing in Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, or another commercial professional ranking so long as the reference includes the publication name, date, and the practice area, if one was specified, in which the lawyer was ranked or selected.

In an Opinion posted just minutes ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court has vacated Opinion 39 which sought to ban advertising in or related to Super Lawyers. The court ruled that the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 7 (a)(2) and (a)(3) must go, stating:

"we acknowledge that Opinion 39's shortcomings

are the inevitable result of the plain language of RPC 7.1(a)(3)

(prohibiting comparative advertising statements) and, to a

lesser extent, RPC 7.1(a)(2) (prohibiting advertising "likely to

create an unjustified expectation about results"). Indeed, we

are persuaded that the standards set forth in the RPCs require

review and, at least in respect of RPC 7.1(a)(3), modification

both because of the constitutional concerns identified in the

Report and in light of the emerging trends in attorney

advertising."

The court has referred the matter to three committees for consideration of a revised rule in light of the policy consideration in the Special Master's report and legitimate free speech concerns.

We are thrilled that Opinion 39 has been completely rejected, and feel vindicated in our assertions that lawyers have a constitutional right to truthfully advertise bona fide honor and awards, and that publications such as Super Lawyers provide much needed information to both consumers and attorneys who are beginning the search for legal counsel, or want to validate a referral.