ILNews

Bell & Gaerte: 3 things to know about legal advertising

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bell Gaerte 3 thingsThe Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct define the term “advertising” broadly. Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 7.2(a) defines “advertising” as “any manner of communication partly or entirely intended or expected to promote the purchase or use of professional services.” (Emphasis added) Therefore, these rules cover communications on your website, blog and even social media. Regardless of whether or not you advertise on billboards, you likely need to pay attention to the advertising rules. Here are three things to know about legal advertising.

1. The truth will not always set you free.

Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 states that: “A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.” This rule also states that a communication may be misleading if it “omits a fact” which makes the communication a material misrepresentation. Therefore, the fact that every representation included in a communication can be verified is not enough to satisfy the requirements of Rule 7.1. If you truthfully state in an advertisement that you have “never lost a jury trial,” that statement will be considered misleading if you have never actually tried a jury trial. Simply being literally truthful is not sufficient.

An illustration of a “misleading” advertisement can be seen via In the Matter of Gerling, 777 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind. 2002). In that case, a law firm’s billboard advertisement stated “Expect more from a Gerling attorney.” All of the individuals on the billboard were employees of the firm, but one was not a lawyer. Gerling argued that the material was not misleading because there was no claim that everyone pictured was an attorney. However, the court found that the advertisement was still misleading because not everyone on the billboard was an attorney – from whom you could “expect more.” Id. at 1097-98.

2. Advertise your “commitment” to obtaining results.

The Comment to Rule 7.1 prohibits “any reference to results obtained that may reasonably create an expectation of similar results in future matters.” The Supreme Court of Indiana disciplined an attorney who stated in his advertisement that he could “obtain the best possible settlement” because it likely created unjustified expectations by prospective clients. Matter of Wamsley, 725 N.E.2d 75-77 (Ind. 2000). However, the Supreme Court determined that the “commitment to obtaining the best possible settlement” was not impermissible. Matter of Benke and Crawford, 892 N.E.2d 1237, 1239 (Ind. 2008). In doing so, the court explicitly distinguished an advertisement’s promise to obtain a result from the promise to be committed to the same. In your marketing materials, emphasize your “commitment to results” and de-emphasize or eliminate your reference to the actual results themselves.

3. Don’t trust your final marketing product to a non-lawyer.

Many attorneys have faced disciplinary issues because they delegated the task of producing an advertisement to an advertising agency or a non-lawyer staff member in his or her firm. Guideline 9.1 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct states that “a non-lawyer assistant shall perform services only under the direct supervision of a lawyer.” Rule 5.3 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct further discusses responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants. On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court of Indiana has found a lawyer’s conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for the failure to supervise a non-lawyer.

For example, the court found that an attorney violated Rule 9.1 when he allowed his assistant to place an advertisement containing objectionable content. In re Cartmel, 676 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. 1997). The advertisement was published multiple times before the attorney saw it, at which point he “promptly cancelled it.” Id. at 1049. However, the cancellation was too late for disciplinary purposes. The Supreme Court of Indiana emphasized that the attorney was ultimately responsible for any advertising material created on his behalf and if the material was objectionable he was ultimately responsible. The main lesson here is that all final products produced for an advertisement must be reviewed by a lawyer to ensure that the advertisement complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct.•

__________

James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached via email at jbell@bgdlegal.com or mgaerte@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT