Can a lawyer run an advertisement comparing the lawyer's services to a named competitor's practice of not filling out clients' forms?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer with an immigration practice learned that another immigration lawyer does not fill out immigration forms, and wanted to run an advertisement stating that at least one prominent Seattle immigration firm does not fill out immigration forms for clients and urging readers not to give someone else a lot of money and then do the work themselves.

The committee concluded that a prospective client could reasonably infer from the proposed language that "the work" an immigration lawyer does usually includes or should include filling out the immigration forms. The committee said the language omits material facts: that an important part of any lawyer's job is to advise the client of rights and options, as opposed to simply filling out forms, and that there could be circumstances in which it is in the client's best interests to fill out the forms personally, for example where doing so does not require a lawyer's expertise and having a lawyer or staff member do it would unnecessarily increase the client's cost. The potential effect, the committee concluded, is to mislead the prospective client in violation of RPC 7.2(a).

The committee added that, although the competitor's current practice may be to require clients to fill out their own forms, that practice might change, especially in response to the proposed advertisement, in which event the advertisement would contain inaccurate and therefore misleading information. It noted this problem is inherent in any advertising that includes statements about lawyers' practices, especially in a publication like the Yellow Pages, which remains in print for a full year.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and 7.2 (advertising).

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise that a named rival firm does not fill out clients' forms?

A: The committee concluded the proposed language would mislead prospective clients in violation of RPC 7.2(a) because it omits material facts about what a lawyer's work involves.

Q: Why did the committee call the ad misleading?

A: It said a reader could infer that a lawyer's work usually includes filling out forms, while the ad omitted that advising on rights and options is central and that clients can sometimes complete forms themselves to save cost.

Q: What problem did the committee see with comparing to a competitor's current practice?

A: The competitor's practice might change, especially in response to the ad, which would make the advertisement inaccurate and misleading, a problem the committee said is inherent in long-running ads like the Yellow Pages.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services) and RPC 7.2(a) (advertising), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2. The committee tied the violation to the omission of material facts and to the durability of a comparative statement about another lawyer's practice in a publication that stays in print for a year.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services); Washington RPC 7.1
• ABA Model Rule 7.2 (advertising); Washington RPC 7.2(a)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1780: Family Law Seminar Advertising
• WA Ethics Op. 1788: 'Specialist' Claim in Vietnamese Ad
• WA Ethics Op. 1762: Lawyer Ad in a Repair-Shop Folder

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=980

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1787
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.2(a)
Subject: Advertising; comparison of one lawyer's services with another lawyer; misleading

Facts Presented: Lawyer who has an immigration practice learned that another immigration lawyer does not fill out immigration forms. Lawyer would like to run an advertisement stating: "At least one prominent Seattle immigration firm does not fill out immigration forms for you. Do not give someone else a lot of money and then do the work yourself. Call my offices . . . ".

Applicable Rule: RPC 7.1

RPC Committee Opinion:

(1) A prospective client could reasonably infer from the proposed language that "the work" that an immigration lawyer does for his or her clients usually includes or should include "fill[ing] out the immigration forms". The proposed language omits the facts (a) that an important part of any lawyer's job is to advise the client of his or her rights, and options, as opposed to simply filling out forms, and (b) that there could be circumstances in which it is in the client's best interests to fill out his or her own immigration form, e.g., where filling out the forms does not require the expertise of a lawyer and having a lawyer or staff member do it would unnecessarily increase the cost to the client. The potential effect of the proposed language is to mislead the prospective client in violation of RPC 7.2(a).

(2) Although the current practice of the inquiring lawyer's competitor may be to require clients to fill out their own forms, that practice might change, especially in response to the proposed advertisement, in which event the advertisement would contain inaccurate and therefore misleading information. This problem is inherent in any form of advertising that includes statements about the practices of the lawyers, especially if the advertisement appears in a publication like the Yellow Pages, which remains in print for a full year.