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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT