According to the ABA Rule 7.3 regarding Solicitation of Clients, a lawyer or law firm cannot direct any advertising communication to a specific person who needs legal services for a certain matter, and offer to provide legal services for that particular matter.
The organized bar traditionally took the position that a lawyer was not permitted to actively publicize his services. In effect, it was presumed that every lawyer had an established clientele, or that a lawyer's reputation for good work would inevitably lead others to seek out the lawyer's services.
Based on the assertion that the ban on advertising by lawyers "is rooted in the public interest," since competitive advertising could be misleading and "would inevitably produce unrealistic expectations," the 1969 Code carried over the anti-advertising rules of the earlier Canons.
If this comes as a shock to you, it was not until 1977, in the case of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 WS. 350 (1977), that the United States Supreme Court held that bans on lawyer advertising were impermissible.
Proponents contend that the brisk business done by law firms that advertise is evidence of the quality of work they produce. Those who favor legal advertising generally are convinced that advertisements provide consumers with information about legal services.
First Amendment protects lawyer advertising This action violated a state rule flatly prohibiting such advertising. Faced with a suspension, the attorneys challenged the rule unsuccessfully in state court.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Ethical standards for advertisingShare a common objective of truth. ... Obligation to high personal ethics in creating and sharing commercial information. ... Clearly disclose all material conditions and endorsement identities. ... Distinguish between advertising and news or editorial content. ... Transparent usage of personal information.More items...•
“An Advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interview not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with cases in which ...
In the United States, advertising of services by members of the profession of law is typically permitted but regulated by state court and bar association rules. Advertisements for lawyers and law firms take various forms: print, television, radio, the yellow pages, and online advertising.
Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). The Court held that inherently misleading commercial speech or commercial speech that has been proven to be misleading may be absolutely prohibited but other restrictions are appropriate only where they serve a substantial state interest, directly advance that interest, and are no more restrictive than reasonably necessary to serve that interest. The court provided a little more guidance, perhaps, but no specific directions for determining whether, for example, an advertisement lauding a lawyer’s million dollar jury verdict is misleading even if true and, if misleading, the extent to which such an advertisement may be restricted. Is a disclaimer (“each client’s case is unique; no specific results implied or guaranteed…”) the least restrictive means of protecting the public or is an outright prohibition allowed? What if the average consumer wants to know the verdict record of the lawyers she is considering hiring?
The North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct do not include a laundry list of the kinds of information that might be ethically included in an advertisement nor do they list specific statements, information, or forms of advertising that are prohibited. Instead, Rule 7.1 incorporates the Bates and Central Hudson fundamental requirement for all permissible commercial speech: the rule simply prohibits a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. The rule adds that false and misleading communications include all of the following: a material misrepresentation of fact or law, an omission of a fact necessary to make a statement not misleading, statements that are likely to create unjustified expectations about results that a lawyer can achieve, and a comparison of the lawyer’s services with other lawyer’s services that cannot be factually substantiated. Comment [2] to Rule 7.1 does clarify that an objective standard should be used to evaluate whether a statement is misleading. The comment notes that a statement in an advertisement is misleading when “there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.” [Emphasis added]
447 (1978), recognized that the First Amendment extends to lawyer advertising and that a state may not constitutionally prohibit a lawyer’s newspaper advertisement for fees for routine legal services. A state may, however, prohibit commercial expression that is “false, deceptive, or misleading” ...
A state may, however, prohibit commercial expression that is “false, deceptive, or misleading” and it may impose reasonable restrictions as to “time, place, and manner.”. Unfortunately for regulatory agencies such as your State Bar—and for lawyers—the court provided little guidance as to what is false or misleading in lawyer advertising ...
Lawyer advertising has constitutional protection and is permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct if “truthful and not misleading”—so how do you know what is within the legal and ethical lines and what is not? This article is the first in a series that will provide practical advice on permissible lawyer advertising.
In the absence of specific guidelines and prohibitions, what is a lawyer who wants to advertise allowed to do without violating the Rules of Professional Conduct? Clearly, the old “tombstone” ad, with the names of the firm’s lawyers, a firm address and phone number, a list of legal services offered by the firm, and the charges for those services, is permissible because it contains purely factual information that is neither false nor misleading. (Interestingly, the ad that sent lawyer Bates before the Arizona Bar authorities was not much more than this, although it did claim that his legal services were offered “at very reasonable fees.”) To the extent that an advertisement goes beyond bare bones facts about the firm, however, there is the potential, intended or not, to mislead. Nevertheless, the standard is an objective one, and the Rules of Professional Conduct are themselves rules of reason. Minor puffery (“we care”), soft endorsements (“they treated me with respect”), and implied attributes (“we’re bulldogs”) are generally considered non-material, unlikely to mislead a reasonable person, and within the ethical line. Beyond the boring but safe simple tombstone ad, the line between what is permitted and what is not becomes fuzzier, particularly with regard to dramatizations in radio and television commercials. Advertising that crosses the line into the realm of misrepresentation, unjustified expectations, and unsubstantiated comparisons will be examined in the next article in this series.
As far back as the nineteenth century, there was a rule of etiquette that one did not advertise their services. The rationale was the prevailing view that law was a form of public service. Therefore, lawyers looked down on advertising as unseemly.
The “proper and constitutional purpose of regulating advertising is to assure that consumers of legal services receive factually accurate, non-misleading information about available services, ” as opposed to the misguided focus on “unprofessional” or “distasteful” advertising.
Rule 7.1 provides: A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make a statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.
The basic problem with the current state patchwork of lawyer advertising regulations lies with the increasingly complex array of inconsistent and divergent state rules that fail to deal with evolving technology and innovations in the delivery and marketing of legal services. The state hodge-podge of detailed regulations also present First Amendment and antitrust concerns in restricting the communication of accurate and useful information to consumers of legal services.
In 2014, the Committee sent surveys to fifty-one U.S. lawyer regulation offices regarding the enforcement of advertising rules in their jurisdiction. Thirty-six of the fifty-one jurisdictions responded to the survey, indicating:
Therefore, lawyers looked down on advertising as unseemly. In 1908, the American Bar Association (the “ABA”) released its Canons of Professional Ethics, which outlined a general prohibition against legal advertising.
A series of Supreme Court cases beginning in 1975 eventually lead to the recognition that 1) law was a business and 2) commercial advertising was free speech and thus protected by the First Amendment. This did away with the blanket prohibitions on legal advertising, though it still allowed for state regulation.
Six Things Every Lawyer (and Marketer) Should Know About Lawyer Advertising Ethics. When it comes to the regulation of advertising, an ounce of understanding can do two things. For one, knowing about the lawyer advertising ethics rules can prevent disciplinary trouble. Second, understanding these rules can maximize your marketing messaging.
Ethics opinions are issued by the ABA, many states and some metro bar associations. These opinions, which are sometimes prompted by a lawyer’s request, apply the rules to a specific question. For example, Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1885 addresses the ethics aspects of participating in an online matching service.
Most states’ disciplinary or regulatory office will have an ethics hotline, staffed by counsel with expertise in the rules. These hotlines are helpful for relatively straightforward questions that can be answered without in-depth research.
Courts have defined commercial speech as “that which beckons business” or “proposes a commercial transaction.”. Expanding your brand through communications that are not encumbered by the rules should enable you to broaden your outreach.
Therefore, lawyers should never rely on the ABA Model Rules to guide their advertising endeavors.
2. The ABA Model Rules Do Not Govern Your Communications. The purpose of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct is to assist the highest court of each state when those courts consider and then adopt their Rules of Professional Conduct.
A few states do not include comments. If you need to understand the rules for one of those states, try to find a state with an identical or similar rule and take a look at the comments from that state. Ethics opinions are issued by the ABA, many states and some metro bar associations.
Attorney advertising is a communication made by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm about a lawyer or firm’s available services. Attorney solicitation is an advertisement made by a lawyer or law firm that is targeted to a specific person or group—which may be unethical.
Knowing the lawyer advertising rules that apply to you is also critical in today’s digital age. From social media to law firm websites, advertising online to connect with clients is increasingly common for lawyers. And, with more business being conducted remotely, the ability to attract clients using digital marketing strategies is more important than ever.
Positive recommendations from past clients can be a powerful tool for attracting potential new clients, but it’s again important to know and follow the correct lawyer advertising rules for your jurisdiction before posting testimonials on your law firm website.
Attorney solicitation is an advertisement made by a lawyer or law firm that is targeted to a specific person or group—which may be unethical . According to the ABA Rule 7.3 regarding Solicitation of Clients, a lawyer or law firm cannot direct any advertising communication to a specific person who needs legal services for a certain matter, and offer to provide legal services for that particular matter.
The State Bar of California’s rules on advertising note that communication or solicitations should not contain statements (in any form) that are untrue, confusing, deceiving, or misleading to the public.
In New York, for example, Rule 7.1 requires lawyers and firms to keep copies of advertisements for at least three years after their initial dissemination, and copies of ads in computer-accessed communications for at least one year. For law firm websites containing advertising, New York requires that the site’s content (initial or after any major redesign or content change) be preserved at least every 90 days.
While advertising your services is permitted (as long as rules are followed), you can’t use advertising communications to directly solicit your services. The ABA Rule 7.3 highlights that lawyers cannot solicit their services in person towards a targeted individual if the lawyer’s goal is financial gains for the lawyer or law firm. If the advertising communications are directed to the public, it is not considered a solicitation.
Even before lawyers were allowed to advertise in 1977, polls showed they suffered from a poor public image. Richard Cebula, a national expert on economic analysis, conducted an empirical study on how lawyer advertising affects the image of lawyers.
Arguing on behalf of the Arizona attorneys in 1977, another former St. Paulite, William Canby , told justices that advertising helped consumers access legal assistance. He told the Supreme Court that the wealthy knew how to access lawyers because they moved in the same social circles.
He says those who had lower incomes, little education, or were new citizens thought more of lawyers based on advertising.
Movies also played a strong role in the public's view of lawyers Cebula found. The 1993 film "The Firm " and others like it reinforced the stereotype of conniving attorneys. In one scene, senior partner Gene Hackman talks ethics with young associate, Tom Cruise.
Divorce attorney Corri Fetman unveils her new advertising campaign on mobile billboards June 7, 2007 in Chicago, Ill. Fetman's previous campaign featured a fixed billboard with the same slogan, "Life's Short. Get a Divorce." but used different photos that were removed by the city after one week.
All agree that lawyers can't mislead or falsely represent themselves. Minneapolis attorney Ron Meshbesher says advertising puts lawyers in a bad light. He advertises but calls it a necessary evil. "If they would ban advertising tomorrow, I'd probably go out and toast it," said Meshbesher.
If anything, lawyer advertising, the evidence shows -- that if we allow for all of these other factors -- lawyer advertising actually improves the overall image of lawyers, " said Cebula. "The highest duty of the profession is to provide legal services to those who need it and don't have it.".
Three areas in which attorneys should be particularly careful about misleading material include: (1) language related to fees, including what prospective clients are and are not responsible for, (2) statements that can be construed to predict success, and (3) the use of actors to portray lawyers or events leading to lawsuits.
Other states such as Texas (Rule 7.04(g)) and Georgia (Rule 7.2(c)(3)) have similar rules related to actors portraying attorneys in legal advertising. Perhaps due to the particular risk that dramatizations will be misleading to prospective clients, many jurisdictions have addressed this issue, so it is important to check your state’s rules on this topic.
Justia delivers proven legal marketing solutions that leverage our unique approach, unparalleled experience and unmatched dedication. Let us help you get more clients and grow your practice.
Justia offers premium website, blogging, and online marketing solutions for law firms. We have an unparalleled record in helping law firms grow. Regardless of whether you are just starting your online marketing efforts or have a fully developed website and blog, we have solutions to help propel you to the next level. In addition to our website and blog services, we also help clients with content, lawyer directory services, social media, local SEO, and PPC Management. Contact usfor more information, or call us at (888) 587-8421.
Though we have previously discussedthe fact that making such claims indirectly can be impermissible (as in the case of certain statements regarding past successes unless accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer), it also is worth emphasizing that it is equally problematic to make explicit claims predicting favorable case outcomes in the future.
In sum, and as described in the comments to the Florida rule, any language explicitly predicting success is likely best avoided, but is also easily remedied through minor wording modifications.
While common sense might dictate that this rule encompasses any statement that is patently false or obviously confusing, and many states have provided some general guidance in this area, it can be difficult to determine exactly what kind of language your bar association may prohibit on this basis. Each jurisdiction has its own interpretation of this standard, and you should always consult your state bar rules to ensure that you are in compliance. To help illustrate the ways in which this concept can potentially be implemented, we have provided specific examples from a few states below.