What a Lawyer May Claim: Specialist, Expert, Best
You can almost certainly call yourself a specialist, and you probably cannot call yourself certified. Those two sentences sound like the same claim and the rules treat them completely differently. Under the ABA model that most states follow, saying you specialize in a field is permitted on the strength of your experience and training. Saying you are certified as a specialist is barred unless an approved body certified you and you name that body in the same breath. Meanwhile the word that actually gets firms into trouble is the one no rule prescribes any wording for at all: “best”.
Three claims that look the same
A reader skimming your attorney page cannot tell the following three claims apart, and the rules can:
- “I specialize in construction accident law.” A description of what you do. Generally permitted, judged against the ordinary standard that a communication must not be false or misleading.
- “I am a certified specialist in construction accident law.” A claim that an outside body tested and endorsed you. Barred unless that is true, the body qualifies, and you say who it is.
- “Recognized among the top construction accident lawyers.” A claim about standing conferred by somebody else. Permitted on conditions that attach to the organization doing the recognizing, not to you.
Most guidance on this subject blurs the first two together and skips the third, and the cost of that runs backwards from what you would expect. Firms avoid “specialist” out of a vague sense that it is risky. Then they make the third kind of claim freely, without the conditions it carries.
Where the rule went in 2018
For decades the rule on this was Model Rule 7.4, so if that number is in your compliance notes, the notes are out of date. The ABA deleted the rule in August 2018 and split it in two.
The ban on claiming certification went to a new Rule 7.2(c), and the rest went into the comments on Rule 7.2. The split dropped nothing, and the duties stayed the same; only the numbering changed.
The split is what makes this subject slippery, because the two halves read as opposites. A comment on Rule 7.2 permits you to say you specialize in a field, on the strength of your training. The rule itself bars you from saying you are certified in it, unless a qualifying body certified you and you name it. Both sit a few lines apart, and one word moves you between them.
What four jurisdictions require
| Authority | What it says about specialist and certification claims |
|---|---|
| ABA Model Rule 7.2(c) |
A lawyer shall not state or imply certification as a specialist unless “(1) the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate authority of the state or the District of Columbia or a U.S. Territory or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association; and (2) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication.” Comment [11]: “Certification signifies that an objective entity has recognized an advanced degree of knowledge.” |
| Florida Rule 4-7.14 (a)(3)–(a)(6) |
The most detailed of the four. A specialist or expert claim needs certification, or a basis the lawyer “can objectively verify … based on the lawyer’s education, training, experience” or “substantial involvement”. “Board certified” is permitted only under the Florida Certification Plan, an ABA- or Florida-Bar-accredited program, or another state bar’s comparable program, and the advertisement must name the area and the certifying organization. A reference to recognition by an organization requires that body to be “generally recognized within the legal profession as being a bona fide organization that makes its selections based on objective and uniformly applied criteria”. |
| Texas Rule 7.02(b) |
Stricter than the model. A communication may not state that a lawyer “has been certified or designated by an organization” as having special competence, with two exceptions: a Texas Board of Legal Specialization certificate holder may state “Board Certified, area of specialization — Texas Board of Legal Specialization”, and a factually accurate statement of membership or certification is allowed only where the organization is accredited by the TBLS. Comment 5: “the name of the certifying organization must be included in any communication regarding the certification.” Comment 3: a statement of practice focus “must be objectively based on the lawyer’s experience, specialized training, or education”. |
| New York Rule 7.1(c) |
Specialist claims moved here on 1 June 2026, when the state replaced its detailed advertising rules with ABA-style ones and deleted its own Rule 7.4. The wording follows the ABA’s: certification by an approved or ABA-accredited organization, named in the communication. |
Two differences matter in practice, and the first is Texas. It accepts only TBLS certification or a TBLS-accredited body, so a credential that satisfies the ABA wording does not automatically satisfy Texas. And Florida is the only one of the four that writes down what a firm-wide claim requires, which is the subject of the next section.
Nothing here is legal advice, and it does not tell you what your bar will do. These four are not a national rule; roughly a dozen states run their own certification plans with their own conditions. Read your own state’s current rule, or ask someone admitted there, before changing your site.
Naming the certifier is the whole requirement
Every version of this rule shares one condition, and it is the easiest to meet and the most often missed. The ABA requires the certifying organization “clearly identified in the communication”. Florida requires both the area and the organization, and Texas requires the name in any communication that mentions the certification at all.
The reason is in Comment [11]: certification means an objective entity recognized an advanced degree of knowledge. Without the entity’s name, a reader cannot tell whether that happened. “Board Certified” alone is an assertion; “Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy” is a fact somebody can check. Of 27 firm pages examined for this piece, one claims certification, and it names the area without naming the certifier. The credential itself may be perfectly real; what is missing is the line that would let a reader confirm it.
If you hold a certification, the fix is a few words long. Put the certifying body next to the claim everywhere the claim appears, including badge strips and footers, which usually lose it to the layout.
Your firm is not your lawyers
“Our attorneys have decades of expertise in medical malpractice” is a different claim from “Ms. Alvarez has decades of expertise in medical malpractice.” The first is about everyone the page covers.
Florida is explicit about what follows, and Rule 4-7.14(a)(6) lets a firm make the claim if it can verify it for one of its lawyers. But if it cannot verify it for every lawyer it employs, the ad has to say so, in a disclaimer the rule spells out word for word. The Committee Notes want that line in type the same size or larger, right beside the claim.
Read that against the way firms write their own pages. The first-person plural is the house style of the genre, so the collective claim comes naturally. Six of the 27 pages make a firm-level claim of this kind. Not one of them carries the disclaimer that Florida’s rule would require of a firm in that position. The cheaper fix is usually not a disclaimer at all, but giving the claim to the lawyer who can support it. That also reads better than a claim made on behalf of everyone.
“Best”, “top” and “premier”: the unregulated zone
No rule in any of the four jurisdictions prescribes wording for a superlative. There is no approved phrasing, no disclaimer that cures one, and no certifying body to name. What governs is the general standard, which is why superlatives are riskier than the words firms worry about rather than safer.
Texas states the test about as plainly as any state does. A claim you cannot back up may mislead if it is specific enough that a reader would take it for a finding of fact. The same goes for a comparison with other lawyers. Specificity is what creates the problem, and a line about caring for clients invites nobody to check it. “The best personal injury firm in Georgia” sounds like a finding.
That distinction gives you a usable test for your own copy. Ask what a reader would have to see to verify the sentence. If the answer is “a survey, a ranking, or a count”, the sentence is making a factual claim and needs the thing that supports it. If the answer is “nothing, it is obviously a statement of intent”, you are fine.
A superlative you can source is a different sentence from one you cannot. “Twice voted best personal injury firm in Georgia by readers of a named publication” carries its own support. “The best personal injury firm in Georgia” does not, and it is the weaker line anyway, because every competitor says it.
Badges carry their own conditions
Third-party marks are how most firms make a standing claim now, and the conditions on them attach to the organization doing the recognizing rather than to you.
Florida lets you point to a group’s recognition on three conditions. The group has to be a real one, and it has to pick on criteria it applies the same way to everyone. And it has to draw from a fair slice of the bar. New Jersey goes at it from the other side. A comparative award there needs the group named, a basis that holds up, and a set line of text on the page. Opinion 48 adds that the line cannot sit in tiny print at the foot of the page, and has to appear near the award itself.
Both rules turn on the same thing, which is how the group made its selection in the first place. Eight of the 27 pages display a mark, and one says anything about how the firm earned it. A line naming the organization and how it selects satisfies the rule in two states and tells the reader something the badge alone does not.
What the Constitution actually protects
The screening-and-naming regime every state now uses came out of a Supreme Court decision, and knowing it helps you read the rules in the right spirit.
Illinois once censured a lawyer over his letterhead, which said he was certified as a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. The Supreme Court reversed in 1990, in Peel, holding that the facts on the letterhead were true and open to checking. A state may not ban a statement that is not misleading.
The Court also marked out what a state may do instead: screen the bodies that certify, or make a lawyer say something about them. Rule 7.2(c) is that suggestion built into a rule: approve the certifier, then name the certifier.
The practical reading is that your truthful, checkable credentials are protected speech, and the conditions exist to keep them checkable. A claim you can document is not something to be nervous about. A claim nobody can verify is the one the rules are aimed at, whichever word you use for it.
What to do with your own pages
- Find every instance of “certified” and check the certifier is named beside it. Include badge rows, page titles and footers, not just body copy.
- Move firm-wide expertise claims onto the lawyer who can support them. It answers Florida’s disclaimer requirement and reads better than a collective claim.
- For each superlative, write down what would verify it. Keep the ones with an answer and a source; cut the rest.
- Beside each badge, name the organization and how it selects. One sentence covers Florida’s criteria test and most of New Jersey’s conditions.
- Replace any “Rule 7.4” in your own compliance notes. The number has been gone from the Model Rules since 2018, and from New York’s since 1 June 2026.
The same discipline applies on your law firm case results pages and in your law firm client testimonials, where a client’s superlative is governed by yet another rule. One thread runs through all of them, and it is worth holding on to. A claim a reader can go and check is almost always allowed. A claim nobody can check is the one that draws attention from a bar.
Can I say I specialize in an area without any certification?
Under the ABA model, generally yes. A comment on Rule 7.2 lets you say you concentrate in a field, or specialize in it, on the strength of your experience and training. The usual bar on misleading claims still applies, and Florida wants you able to verify the claim from your education, training, experience or substantial involvement. Check your own state, because a few are stricter than the model.
Is “expert” treated differently from “specialist”?
The ABA comments address “specialist” and do not single out “expert”. Florida treats them together: a specialist or expert claim needs certification or an objectively verifiable basis. In practice the safer approach is to treat the two words as carrying the same weight, because a reader does.
What if my certifying organization is well known?
Name it anyway, every single time. The requirement is not that the body be obscure or famous, but simply that the communication identify it. A reader can then go and check what the certification involved and who stood behind it. Texas Comment 5 puts it as broadly as possible: the name must be included in any communication regarding the certification.
Can we say our firm is the best in our city?
No rule prescribes wording for that, which is the problem. A reader takes it as a claim about your standing. The Texas test asks whether the line is specific enough that a reader would think you can back it up. If a named ranking sits behind it, cite the ranking. If none does, the sentence is doing less work than you think.
Do we need the New Jersey disclaimer if we do not practice there?
No. RPC 7.1(a)(3) binds lawyers subject to New Jersey’s rules. It is still worth knowing about, for two reasons that apply wherever you practice. It is the clearest written statement of what a comparative award needs. And a firm admitted in several states has to meet the strictest rule that reaches the ad.
Our awards page lists a dozen marks. Is that a problem?
Not in itself, and a long list is no worse than a short one. The conditions attach to the organizations rather than to you: whether each one selects on objective criteria applied uniformly, and whether your page says so. A short methodology note covering the marks you display does more for both compliance and credibility than the badges alone.
What to take away
- Saying you specialize in something is generally permitted on the strength of your training. Saying you are certified in it is the regulated claim, and the two look identical to a reader.
- Model Rule 7.4 was deleted in 2018, so a checklist that still cites it predates the change. The certification prohibition now sits at Rule 7.2(c), and the rest in the comments on Rule 7.2.
- Every version of the rule requires the certifying organization to be named in the communication. It is the easiest condition to meet and the one most often dropped.
- Texas accepts only TBLS certification or a TBLS-accredited body, so satisfying the ABA formulation is not enough there.
- A firm-wide expertise claim is not the same as a lawyer’s claim, and Florida requires a disclaimer that not all the firm’s lawyers have the expertise, unless they do.
- Superlatives have no prescribed wording and no curing disclaimer, which makes them riskier than the words firms avoid. Ask what a reader would have to see to verify the sentence, and whether you could produce it.
- A badge is a claim about the organization’s selection process. A line naming the group and describing how it selects does more for your credibility than the badge on its own.
- Peel protects truthful, verifiable credentials. The conditions exist to keep them verifiable, not to discourage them.
Where these figures come from
The page figures come from 27 law firm attorney and about pages collected from a 34-domain sample. The unit of measurement is the individual claim. Each check asks first whether the claim concerns the firm’s own lawyers, rather than an expert witness or a medical specialist. Does it speak for the firm or for a named lawyer? And what sits beside it? The guidance figures come from 10 comparable articles written on this subject.
Last reviewed October 27, 2026 · How this is researched · Report a correction
AttorneyPlot designs and builds websites for law firms, so it has a commercial interest in this subject. Nothing here is legal advice and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship; complying with the advertising rules of your own jurisdiction remains your firm's responsibility. No ranking, lead volume or case outcome is guaranteed anywhere on this site.
Want a site that ranks like this?
Get a real-time quote for your firm's custom website in under a minute.