Are a lawyer's television ads permissible when they compare the lawyer's services and experience to those of other attorneys?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer submitted three proposed television advertisements, set to air in 1991, asking whether they complied with Rule 7 on lawyer advertising and Rule 5B of the Supreme Court Rules. Each ad featured the attorney with one or more additional participants, and the premise concerned considerations in choosing a civil litigator.

The committee said an attorney is permitted to advertise to increase the public's awareness of available legal services, including through television as specified in Rule 7.2(a), and may communicate information such as name, firm name, address, telephone number, the kinds of services offered, the basis on which fees are determined, and other information that might invite the attention of those seeking legal help. On that basis, the ads appeared to comply with the categories of information permitted by Rule 7.2(a). The committee then cautioned that although the rule is liberal as to manner and method, it is limited by Rule 7.1: because the ads appeared to compare the lawyer's services and experience with those of other attorneys, the lawyer should be prepared to factually substantiate that comparison under Rule 7.1(c), and absent such substantiation the advertisement would violate Rule 7.1(c).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer run television advertisements?

A: The committee said yes; Rule 7.2(a) permits advertising through public media, including television, to communicate permitted categories of information about the lawyer and the lawyer's services.

Q: Can a lawyer's ad compare its services and experience to other lawyers'?

A: The committee said such a comparison is permissible only if the lawyer is prepared to factually substantiate it under Rule 7.1(c); an unsubstantiated comparison would violate that rule.

Q: What information may a lawyer's advertisement contain?

A: The committee cited Rule 7.2's comment: name and firm name, address and telephone number, the kinds of services offered, the basis for fees (including prices, payment, and credit arrangements), and other information inviting the attention of those seeking legal services.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 7.2 (advertising) and Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services), each corresponding to the like-numbered Model Rule, and references Rule 5B of the South Carolina Supreme Court Rules. The committee treated Rule 7.2 as defining permissible content and Rule 7.1(c) as the substantiation limit on comparative claims.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 7.2 / Model Rule 7.2: a lawyer may advertise through public media, including television, subject to content limits.
• South Carolina RPC 7.1(c) / Model Rule 7.1: a comparison of the lawyer's services with others' must be factually substantiable.

Other authorities:

• Rule 5B of the South Carolina Supreme Court Rules, referenced in the inquiry on lawyer advertising.

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 23-03: Tiny Radio-Dash Ads
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 12-09: Out-of-State Firm Billboards
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 90-37: Mailings to Seminar Guests

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-90-39/

Original opinion text

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

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-39

Attorney A submitted three (3) proposed advertisements scheduled to air on television during 1991 to determine if the advertisements comply with Rule 7 concerning lawyer advertising and Rule 5B of the Supreme Court Rules. All ads feature the attorney with one or more additional participants. The premise of the ads concerns considerations in choosing a civil litigator.

Question:
Are the proposed advertisements ethically permissible under Rule 7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 5B of the South Carolina Supreme Court?

Summary:
Attorneys A's advertisements appear to comply with Rule 7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct if they can be substantiated.

Opinion:
An attorney is permitted to advertise his services to increase the public's awareness of the various types of legal services available. An attorney may advertise his services through public medias as specified in Rule 7.2(a) which includes television advertisements. An attorney allowed to disseminate information about his name or firm name, address and telephone number; the kinds of services the attorney will undertake; the basis on which the attorney's fees are to be determined, including prices for specific services, payments and credit arrangements; and other information that might invite the attention of those seeking legal assistance.

(Comment, Rule 7.2). Attorney A's advertisements appear to comply with the types of information an attorney is permitted to communicate by way of an advertisement pursuant to Rule 7.2(a).

Although the Rule is liberal as to the manner and the method by which advertising may be done, it is limited by Rule 7.1. Attorney A's advertisement appears to make a comparison of his services and experience with the services and experience rendered by other attorneys, therefore, he should be prepared to factually substantiate that comparison pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) of the Rules. Otherwise, Attorney A's advertisement would violate Rule 7.1(c).