Can a law firm post past verdicts, settlements, and selective case lists on its website, and how must self-laudatory memberships be presented?

Plain-English summary

The opinion considers whether a law firm may present its past successes on its website without violating Rule 7.1(a)(2), which makes a communication misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve. It situates the question in commercial-speech doctrine, noting lawyer advertising is protected but may not be deceptive (Bates v. State Bar of Arizona), that professional advertising poses special deception risks (In re R.M.J.), and that disclaimers may be required to dispel confusion (Zauderer).

The opinion revisits 2000 FEO 1, which had required an extensive context for verdict information (history of unfavorable as well as favorable results, collection rates, case types and complexity, whether liability or damages were contested, whether opponents had counsel, the period examined, and a no-prediction statement). It concludes those requirements may not fit every scenario and can be so burdensome that they discourage lawyers from providing any verdict information, depriving consumers of helpful information. Drawing on the Oklahoma bar (Op. 320) and the New York State Bar (Op. 771), the opinion adopts a disclaimer-based approach: a website may include a case-summary section of accurate verdicts and settlements if accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer that is tailored to the information presented and displayed so that anyone reading the case summaries would also read the disclaimer. A suitable disclaimer should note that the listed cases are illustrative, that results depend on factors unique to each case, that not all results are provided, and that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

The opinion answers the remaining inquiries by reference to that holding: selective biographies citing a single victory, listing only favorable reported cases, or describing successful representations are permitted on the same disclaimer conditions (Opinions #2 and #3). References to self-laudatory memberships, whether in an individual biography or a general firm statement, must comply with 2003 FEO 3's four conditions and disclaimer requirement (Opinions #4 and #5). An editor's note states that on adoption, 2000 FEO 1 is overruled to the extent inconsistent and the committee will recommend withdrawing 2009 FEO 6.

In practice

Under this opinion, as the North Carolina rule stood at the time, a firm website may include verdicts, settlements, and favorable case lists when an accurate presentation is paired with a disclaimer that is both specifically tailored to the listed information and placed so a reader of the results will also see it. The opinion frames the disclaimer's prominence and proximity, not an exhaustive recitation of context, as what prevents an unjustified-expectation problem, and it routes any self-laudatory membership claim through the separate conditions of 2003 FEO 3.

Common questions

Q: Can a law firm list its past verdicts and settlements on its website?

A: Yes. Opinion #1 concludes a website may include a case-summary section of factually accurate verdicts and settlements if accompanied by an appropriately tailored disclaimer displayed so that anyone reading the summaries will also read it.

Q: What must the disclaimer say and where must it appear?

A: The opinion concludes the disclaimer must be tailored to the information presented and prominently placed near it, and should note that the cases are illustrative, that results depend on case-specific factors, that not all results are shown, and that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Q: Can a lawyer's biography list only favorable cases or successful representations?

A: Yes, on the same conditions. Opinions #2 and #3 conclude selective biographies of victories or successful matters are permitted subject to the disclaimer approach of Opinion #1.

Q: How must memberships in self-laudatory organizations be presented?

A: Per 2003 FEO 3. Opinions #4 and #5 conclude that any reference to such a membership, individually or firm-wide, must satisfy 2003 FEO 3's four conditions and its disclaimer requirement.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 7.1 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (communications concerning a lawyer's services, the counterpart to Model Rule 7.1), specifically Rule 7.1(a)(2) on unjustified expectations and comment [3]. It applies First Amendment commercial-speech cases and persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, and it modifies prior North Carolina opinion 2000 FEO 1 and references 2003 FEO 3 and 2007 FEO 14.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• N.C. Rule 7.1, including 7.1(a)(2) and comment [3]

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), lawyer advertising as protected commercial speech
• In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), special deception risks of professional advertising
• Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), disclaimers to dispel deception

Other opinions cited:

• 2000 FEO 1 (overruled to the extent inconsistent); 2003 FEO 3; 2007 FEO 14
• Oklahoma Ethics Opinion 320 (2004); NY State Bar Op. 771 (2003); DC Legal Ethics Op. 335 (2006)

See also

• NC State Bar 2003 FEO 3: Advocates Forum Ads
• ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites
• ABA Formal Op. 465: Daily-Deal Marketing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2009-formal-ethics-opinion-16/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Editor's Note: Upon adoption of this proposed opinion by the State Bar Council, 2000 FEO 1 will be overruled to the extent it is inconsistent and the Ethics Committee will recommend that the council withdrawal 2009 FEO 6.

Inquiry #1:

Is it possible for a law firm to include on its firm website a section showcasing successful verdicts and settlements without violating Rule 7.1(a)(2)?

Opinion #1:

Yes. Rule 7.1 provides that a lawyer "shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services." The rule further provides that a communication is false or misleading if it "is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve." Rule 7.1(a)(2). At issue is whether a law firm can provide information on its past successes without creating unjustified expectations.

Lawyer advertising is commercial speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). However, lawyer advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading. Id. The United States Supreme Court has noted that advertising by professionals poses special risks of deception because the public lacks sophistication concerning legal services. In re R.M.J., 455 U.S.191 (1982). Accordingly, warnings or disclaimers might be appropriately required in lawyer advertisements to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception. Zauderer v. Ohio Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).

Consumers of legal services benefit from the dissemination of accurate information in choosing legal representation. See DC Legal Ethics Comm., Op. 335 (2006). Lawyers also benefit from the dissemination of accurate information when seeking to enlist the aid of co-counsel in a particular matter. A consumer researching law firms on the internet expects a law firm's website to include information about the firm's past successes, and many firm websites currently include a "verdict and settlements" section. The law firm's duty is to provide that information to the consumer without creating an unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve. Comment [3] to Rule 7.1 provides that an advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer's achievements may be misleading "if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case."

Previously, the Ethics Committee determined that statements about a lawyer's or a law firm's record in obtaining favorable verdicts was permissible on a firm's website if the information was provided in a certain context. See 2000 FEO 1. According to the opinion, the context would have to include the following:

disclosure of the lawyer's or firm's history of obtaining unfavorable, as well as favorable, verdicts and settlements; the lawyer's or firm's success in actually collecting favorable verdicts; the types of cases handled and their complexity; whether liability and/or damages were contested; and whether the opposing party or parties were represented by legal counsel. In addition, the verdict record must disclose the period of time examined. Finally, the communication must include a statement that the outcome of a particular case cannot be predicated upon a lawyer's or a law firm's past results.

2000 FEO 1. The requirements set out in 2000 FEO 1 may not be applicable in every scenario and may be so burdensome that they discourage lawyers from providing any information about verdicts and settlements and thereby effectively prevent consumers from getting helpful information.

In considering lawyer advertising, the Oklahoma Bar Association has concluded that a lawyer may advertise specific jury verdicts and settlement amounts if certain requirements are met. The advertisement must be factually accurate; must include an appropriate disclaimer displayed in the same manner and with the same emphasis as the results; must not suggest that the lawyer is promising the same results; must state that settlements are the result of private negotiations between the parties involved that may be affected by factors other than the legal merits of a particular case; and must not violate the lawyer's duty of confidentiality. Oklahoma Ethics Opinion 320 (10/15/04).

By way of example, the Oklahoma Bar opines that a statement in a printed advertisement about the results in a particular case would not violate Rule 7.1 if the statement is accompanied by an equally prominent statement to the effect that each case is different and that prior results should not create an expectation about future results in an individual case. According to the Oklahoma Ethics Committee, such a disclaimer would be "equally prominent" if the disclaimer is presented in the same manner and with the same emphasis as the statements themselves, and if its import is not obscured or minimized by other language or materials in the advertisement. For example, such a disclaimer in a printed advertisement should use the same font and at least the same size print as the statements themselves.

New York has also considered the use of disclaimers in lawyer advertising. The New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics opined that if client testimonials and reports of past results are misleading, a disclaimer may cure the otherwise misleading information if the disclaimer is sufficiently tailored to address the information that is misleading, and if the disclaimer's placement on the website is such that it is reasonable to expect that anyone who reads the testimonials and reports of past results will read the disclaimer. NY State Bar Assoc. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Op. 771 (2003). The committee further opined that the lawyer should "consider the size of the text and the proximity of the disclaimer to the client testimonials or report of past results. If the disclaimer is in a link, the lawyer should also consider the size and placement of the text signaling the reader to access the link and whether this signal sufficiently informs the reader that reviewing the linked disclaimer is material to any assessment of the information conveyed in the advertisement."

We agree with the reasoning of the New York and Oklahoma bars and conclude that a website may include a case summary section showcasing successful verdicts and settlements if the section contains factually accurate information accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer must be sufficiently tailored to address the information presented in the case summary section. The disclaimer must be displayed on the website in such a manner that it is reasonable to expect that anyone who reads the case summary section will also read the disclaimer. Depending on the information contained in the case summary section, an appropriate disclaimer should point out that the cases mentioned on the site are illustrative of the matters handled by the firm; that case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case; that not all results are provided; and that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Providing a prominently displayed disclaimer that is specifically tailored to the information presented on a webpage regarding a lawyer or law firm's achievements precludes a finding that the webpage is likely to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters.

Inquiry #2:

Would the following types of information be permitted on a firm website:

A lawyer's biography referencing a single trial victory in a well-known case or the successful handling of a specific matter;

A lawyer's biography providing a list of his reported cases, but not including unfavorable reported cases; or

A lawyer's biography listing "representative matters handled," "recent cases," "recent experience," or the like but only including matters that were favorably resolved for the lawyer's clients?

Opinion #2:

Yes. See Opinion #1.

Inquiry #3:

Would the following types of information be permitted on a firm website:

A lawyer's biography stating that the lawyer has successfully represented numerous corporations or individuals;

A lawyer's biography stating that the lawyer has argued and won numerous cases before the North Carolina appellate courts without stating that he has also lost cases before the appellate courts; or

A lawyer's biography stating that the lawyer has successfully handled cases in a specific area of the law without stating that he has also been unsuccessful on cases in that area of the law?

Opinion #3:

Yes. See Opinion #1.

Inquiry #4:

2003 FEO 3 states that a lawyer may only advertise his membership or participation in an organization with a self-laudatory name or designation if certain conditions are satisfied. Does 2003 FEO 3 apply to a lawyer's individual biography on his firm's website?

Opinion #4:

Yes. 2003 FEO 3 states that a lawyer may only advertise his membership or participation in an organization with a self-laudatory name or designation if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the organization has strict, objective standards for admission that are verifiable and would be recognized by a reasonable lawyer as establishing a legitimate basis for determining whether the lawyer has the knowledge, skill, experience, or expertise indicated by the designated membership; (2) the standards for membership are explained in the advertisement or information on how to obtain the membership standards is provided in the advertisement; (3) the organization has no financial interest in promoting the particular lawyer; and (4) the organization charges the lawyer only reasonable membership fees. The opinion also provides that when the membership information may create unjustified expectations, such as the expectation that a lawyer obtains a million dollar verdict in every case, a disclaimer must be included in the advertisement.

Any reference to membership in such an organization must comply with the requirements of 2003 FEO 3. See also 2007 FEO 14 (allowing lawyer to advertise his inclusion in the North Carolina Super Lawyers list but not to claim that he is a "super lawyer").

Inquiry #5:

Does 2003 FEO 3 apply to a firm's general reference to such membership on its website, such as "ten of our lawyers were included in the Legal Elite"?

Opinion #5:

Yes. See Opinion #4.

2000 FEO 1 is to be overruled to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.