In a print law-firm ad, can a personal-injury lawyer list specific jury verdicts and settlement amounts and display ratings like Martindale-Hubbell and Best Lawyers?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer submitted a print advertisement for the committee's review, and the committee assumed for its response that the facts stated in the advertisement are true. The committee addressed several elements of the proposed ad in turn. A statement that the inquirer limits his practice to major injury claims arising from medical malpractice may not violate RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice).

On the citation of specific jury verdicts, the committee said this is generally disfavored because it may create unjustified expectations and thereby violate RPC 7.1. If the inquirer decides to include such statements, a disclaimer must be present, displayed at least as prominently as the references to the results themselves, and containing information that would lead a reasonable person to understand that the lawyer is not claiming to be able to reproduce such results in a particular case. The committee offered specific language it recommended for that disclaimer.

The committee also flagged two further problems. The statement that the inquirer has experience obtaining "[n]umerous [s]ettlements from $1,000,000" may be inherently misleading because the term "numerous" is, by definition, indicative of an indeterminate number. And the use, at the bottom of the proposed advertisement, of the logos of the American Board of Trial Advocates, a statement of "[t]he highest obtainable rating in [p]erformance and [e]thics" from Martindale-Hubbell, and the logo of "The Best Lawyers in America" may be inherently misleading in violation of RPC 7.1 when the advertisement is circulated to the general public without further explanation of the meaning, nature, or significance of those affirmations. The committee added that if such affirmations appear in professional legal publications whose audience is the professional community, they would not likely violate RPC 7.1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which revised the lawyer-advertising rules (then RPC 7.1 and 7.4). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

In practice

Under the Washington rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee treated specific jury-verdict citations in a print ad as generally disfavored and as a potential RPC 7.1 violation absent a disclaimer displayed at least as prominently as the results and worded so a reasonable person would understand the lawyer is not claiming to reproduce them. Per the opinion, a "numerous settlements from $1,000,000" claim may be inherently misleading because "numerous" is indeterminate, and trade-group logos and rating claims may be inherently misleading under RPC 7.1 when aimed at the general public without explanation, though the committee said the same affirmations would not likely violate RPC 7.1 in publications aimed at the professional community.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer's print ad list specific jury verdicts the lawyer obtained?

A: The committee said citing specific jury verdicts is generally disfavored because it may create unjustified expectations and thereby violate RPC 7.1, and that if included it requires a disclaimer at least as prominent as the results.

Q: What must the disclaimer accomplish?

A: Per the opinion, the disclaimer must contain information that would lead a reasonable person to understand that the lawyer is not claiming to be able to reproduce such results in a particular case; the committee recommended language stating that the cases are offered as examples and do not represent the validity or value of any other claim.

Q: Is saying the lawyer obtained "numerous" settlements from a dollar figure a problem?

A: The committee said the statement of "numerous settlements from $1,000,000" may be inherently misleading because the term "numerous" is, by definition, indicative of an indeterminate number.

Q: Can the ad display trade-group logos and a Martindale-Hubbell or Best Lawyers rating?

A: The committee said those logos and rating claims may be inherently misleading in violation of RPC 7.1 when circulated to the general public without further explanation of their meaning, nature, or significance, but would not likely violate RPC 7.1 in publications aimed at the professional legal community.

Q: Can a lawyer state that the practice is limited to a field, such as medical-malpractice injury claims?

A: The committee said the statement that the inquirer limits his practice to major injury claims due to medical malpractice may not violate RPC 7.4.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington's advertising rules under the pre-2006 numbering. RPC 7.1 (corresponding to Model Rule 7.1) prohibits false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services, including statements likely to create unjustified expectations. RPC 7.4 (corresponding to the Model Rules' provisions on communication of fields of practice and specialization) governs statements that a lawyer limits the practice to particular fields. The committee assumed the truth of the ad's factual statements and analyzed each element against those two rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services; false or misleading; unjustified expectations)
• Model Rule 7.4 / Washington RPC 7.4 (communication of fields of practice and specialization)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1412: Advertising Past Verdicts
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1705: Accurate Ad With a Disclaimer
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1075: 'Certified,' 'Specialist' Ads
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1416: Misleading Living-Trust Ads

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1252

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 2008
Year Issued: 2003
RPC(s): RPC 7.1, 7.4
Subject: Advertisement in print medium

The inquirer submitted a print advertisement for review by the committee. The committee opined that it had reviewed the inquiry regarding the proposed advertisement and assumes for the purposes of its response that the facts stated in the advertisement are true. The statement the inquirer proposes to the effect that the inquirer limits his practice to major injury claims due to medical malpractice may not violate RPC 7.4. The citation of specific jury verdicts is generally disfavored because it may create unjustified expectations and, thereby, violate RPC 7.1. If, however, the inquirer decides to include such statements, a disclaimer must be present and must at a minimum be displayed at least as prominently as the references to results themselves and contain information that would lead a reasonable person to understand that the lawyer is not claiming to be able to reproduce such results in a particular case.

The committee recommends that the disclaimer preceding the specific jury verdict examples state the following: The following cases are offered as examples of actual cases this firm has acted as counsel but does not represent the validity and/or value of any other claim for injury.

In addition, the specific statement that the inquirer has experience obtaining “[n]umerous [s]ettlements from $1,000,000” may be inherently misleading as the term “numerous” is, by definition, indicative of an indeterminate number.

Finally, the inquirer’s use, at the bottom of the proposed advertisement, of the logos of the American Board of Trial Advocates, the statement that the inquirer has “[t]he highest obtainable rating in [p]erformance and [e]thics” from Martindale-Hubbell, and the logo of “The Best Lawyers in America”, may be inherently misleading in violation of RPC 7.1 when the advertisement would be circulated to members of the general public, without further explanation of the meaning, nature or significance of the various affirmations. The committee points out that if such affirmations appear in professional legal publications whose audience is the professional community they would not likely violate RPC 7.1.