Can a lawyer use a musical jingle in radio or TV advertising, or is that too undignified?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer wanted to buy broadcast advertising using musical concepts or jingles and asked what ethical considerations applied and what kinds of jingles would be appropriate.

The committee concluded that a jingle's lyrics were subject to the same rules as any other advertising text. Under Rule 7.1, the lyrics could not contain false or misleading statements, so a jingle calling the firm "the best" or comparing it to other firms would likely violate Rule 7.1(c), and the lawyer also had to avoid suggesting expertise or specialization in violation of Rule 7.4 unless certified. On the separate question of dignity, the committee found no basis for a per se ban: the comment to Rule 7.2 treats questions of taste as matters of speculation and subjective judgment, and unless an ad violates a specific advertising prohibition, a lawyer should not be disciplined for techniques some find inconsistent with the dignity of the profession. The committee cited Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel striking down a prophylactic ban on illustrations, and observed that the same reasoning left no basis for a per se ban on jingles. It noted the ABA's 1988 aspirational advertising goals, which discourage inappropriately dramatic music and similar devices but are not a basis for discipline, and reminded that the purpose of advertising is to assist the public in obtaining legal services.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Are musical jingles allowed in lawyer advertising?

A: Yes. The committee found no per se ban on jingles; their lyrics simply have to meet the same rules as any other ad text.

Q: What must a jingle's lyrics avoid?

A: False or misleading statements under Rule 7.1, including calling the firm "the best" or comparing it to others under Rule 7.1(c), and any suggestion of expertise or specialization barred by Rule 7.4 absent certification.

Q: Can a lawyer be disciplined for an undignified jingle?

A: Not on dignity grounds alone. The committee said that unless an ad violates a specific prohibition, a lawyer should not be disciplined merely for techniques some find undignified, citing the comment to Rule 7.2 and Zauderer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications), Rule 7.2 (advertising) and its comment, and Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization), which correspond to like-numbered Model Rules. It read these against Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 7.1 / Model Rule 7.1: a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication, including unsubstantiated comparisons (7.1(c)).
• South Carolina RPC 7.2 / Model Rule 7.2: advertising; its comment treats questions of taste as subjective judgment.
• South Carolina RPC 7.4 / Model Rule 7.4: limits on claims of specialization or expertise absent certification.

Cases:

• Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), striking down a prophylactic ban on illustrations in attorney advertising.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Aspirational Goals for Advertising (1988), reprinted in ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct at 81:207-209.

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 93-10: Advertising a Second License
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 00-09: Free Public Legal Seminars
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 03-10: Practice-Area Trade Names

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-93-17/

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 93-17

Lawyer desires to buy legal advertising from local broadcast media, using "musical concepts" or "jingles" as a part of the advertisement.

Question:
What ethical considerations should the lawyer be aware of in developing the musical concept or format, and what sort of musical concepts or jingles would be appropriate for legal advertising?

Summary:
As with any other advertising text, the lyrics of musical jingles in lawyer advertising must not contain false or misleading statements or violate regulations regarding the characterization of a lawyer as a specialist, expert, or authority. The use of a jingle should not subject a lawyer to discipline simply because some may find the advertising device to be undignified.

Opinion:
The SC Rules of Professional Conduct currently require that media advertisements not contain false or misleading statements. Rule 7.1. A lawyer, therefore, must review the lyrics of any jingle as carefully as other advertising text to avoid any statements that would violate Rule 7.1. For example, a jingle that refers to the law firm as "the best" or that in any other way compares the firm to other law firms would likely run afoul of Rule 7.1(c). Also, the lawyer must ensure that the jingle does not violate Rule 7.4 by suggesting that a lawyer is an expert, specialist, or authority unless the lawyer is certified as an expert by an appropriate certification board.

The use of jingles also raises a question of whether certain advertising techniques are so inherently undignified as to be inappropriate for professional advertising. However, the Comment to Rule 7.2 notes that questions of taste in advertising are "matters of speculation and subjective judgment", suggesting that unless an advertisement violates a specific advertising prohibition, the lawyer should not be disciplined simply for using techniques that some would judge to be inconsistent with the dignity of the profession.

At one time, many states banned the use by lawyers of illustrations in printed advertising in order to preserve the dignity of lawyer advertising. However, the US Supreme Court, in striking down such a prophylactic rule in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), indicated that "although the State undoubtedly has at substantial interest in ensuring that its attorneys behave with dignity and decorum in the courtroom, we are unsure that the State's desire that attorneys maintain their dignity in their communications with the public is an interest substantial enough to justify the abridgement of their First Amendment rights". Similarly, there would seem to be no basis for a per se ban on musical jingles, and none appears in the Rules.

We do note, however, that, in 1988, the ABA endorsed a set of aspirational "goals" for advertising, which are intended to assist lawyers to develop appropriate advertising, but not to serve as the basis for disciplinary action. Those goals provide that the lawyer "should consider that the use of inappropriately dramatic music, unseemly slogans, hawkish spokespersons, premium offers, slapstick routines or outlandish settings in advertising does not instill confidence in the lawyer or the legal profession and undermines the serious purpose of legal services and the judicial system." ABA Aspirational Goals for Advertising, reprinted in ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct at 81:207-209.

While the use of jingles may not raise any ethical issues beyond those normally encountered in the preparation of any advertising text, a lawyer should keep in mind that the purpose of advertising is to "assist the public in obtaining legal services," Comment, Rule 7.2, and any musical concepts or jingles should further, and not interfere with, that purpose.