## Facts

- Ted F. Walker, a Tennessee attorney, advertised legal services for uncontested divorces in multiple cities.
- Walker was not certified as a specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization.
- Tennessee disciplinary rule DR 2-101(C)(3) required a non-certified lawyer who advertised in a practice area to include the exact disclaimer: “Not certified as a (area of practice) specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization.”
- Walker ran advertisements that referenced divorce law without the required disclaimer or used disclaimer language that did not match the required wording.
- The Board of Professional Responsibility filed disciplinary petitions and issued a private reprimand.
- The chancery court upheld the reprimand and allowed costs to be assessed against Walker under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.
- Walker appealed, arguing the disclaimer rule violated the First Amendment and that costs could not be assessed.

## Issues

1. Whether DR 2-101(C)(3)’s compelled disclaimer for non-certified attorneys advertising a practice area violates the First Amendment protections applicable to attorney advertising.
2. Whether Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 permits assessing the costs of the disciplinary proceeding against the respondent attorney.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court.
- The court held DR 2-101(C)(3) constitutional as applied to Walker and upheld the private reprimand.
- The court held that costs of the disciplinary proceeding could be assessed against Walker under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney advertising is commercial speech subject to regulation, including compelled disclosure of factual, non-misleading information.
- A state may require a non-certified attorney who advertises a practice area to include a clear disclaimer of non-certification when the requirement is reasonably related to preventing consumer deception and is not unduly burdensome.
- Requiring uniform, exact disclaimer wording may be justified to ensure clarity and reduce consumer confusion about specialization or certification.
- Under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, costs of disciplinary proceedings may be assessed against the respondent attorney; publication of the rule within the disciplinary framework is sufficient notice.

## Conclusion

The court sustained discipline against an attorney who advertised divorce services without the mandated “not certified” disclaimer, holding the compelled disclosure a permissible regulation of commercial speech, and it affirmed the assessment of disciplinary costs under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9.


Walker v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 38 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2001)