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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT