🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
MBAR 1994

Can a lawyer advertise a specific contingent fee rate, like '25% contingency fees for personal injury cases'?

Short answer: The committee concluded a lawyer may advertise contingent fee rates only if the ad specifies whether the rate is computed net or gross of costs the client owes, because an unqualified rate is open to several reasonable readings and risks being deceptive.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1994
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Several attorneys asked whether Massachusetts ethics rules barred advertising contingent fee rates, one proposing an ad reading "25% Contingency Fees for Personal Injury Cases." The committee noted that neither SJC Rule 3:07's version of the Code nor SJC Rule 3:05 (which governs contingent fee agreements themselves) specifically addressed advertising rates; the governing provision was DR 2-101(A), which broadly prohibited public communications "containing a deceptive statement of claim."

The committee concluded that an unqualified rate like "25% Contingency Fees" risked being deceptive because it was subject to at least three reasonable interpretations of how costs interact with the percentage. Using a $100,000 settlement with $20,000 in costs, it showed a prospective client might variously expect to take home $75,000, $60,000, or $55,000 depending on whether and how costs were netted out before applying the percentage. Because the unqualified ad was vague and open to multiple reasonable readings, it risked violating DR 2-101(A).

To cure the problem, the committee advised that advertisements of contingent fee rates should specify whether the advertised rate is computed net or gross of any costs or expenses for which the client is responsible. With that specification, and so long as the advertisement was not otherwise deceptive or in violation of the disciplinary rules, the committee concluded that contingent fee rate advertising was permissible.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, before Massachusetts's adoption of the 2015 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer advertise a flat contingent fee percentage?

A: Yes, but only with a qualification. The committee concluded a lawyer may advertise contingent fee rates if the ad specifies whether the rate is computed net or gross of any costs the client is responsible for.

Q: Why was an unqualified "25% contingency fee" ad a problem?

A: The committee found it subject to at least three reasonable interpretations of how costs affect the client's net recovery, making it vague and risking a deceptive statement under DR 2-101(A).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the predecessor disciplinary rule DR 2-101(A) (prohibition on public communications containing a deceptive statement of claim), corresponding to Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services). The committee noted that SJC Rule 3:05 governed contingent fee agreements but not their advertisement, and referenced the ABA Model Code's DR 2-101(B)(22), which was not in force in Massachusetts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Model Rule 7.1 / DR 2-101(A) (deceptive communications about a lawyer's services)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1994 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.