Attorneys in trouble for ads

September 5, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Two Indianapolis attorneys received public reprimands for the use of “Legal Advertisement” and other phrases on brochures they give to prospective clients. After reading the opinion handed down by the Indiana Supreme Court yesterday, I’m confused about how the process of submitting your ads to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission works.

Attorneys have to file their advertising materials with the commission before they can send them out. But no one at the commission reviews the submitted ads for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, probably because there are too many ads to keep up with.

My confusion comes from reading the opinion and finding out the two attorneys submitted one of their brochures to the commission for approval back in 1996. The commission sent a letter back saying they don’t advise attorneys on the propriety of their ads. Yet, the commission sometimes sends letters to lawyers letting them know the language of their submitted ads needs to be changed to comply with the professional rules.

These two attorneys didn’t get such a letter and then found themselves in front of the Disciplinary Commission years later.

I’m not excusing their misconduct – they had been practicing for 10 years by the time the brochures were created – but if the commission sometimes will warn attorneys about their ads, why didn’t the commission respond to the attorneys’ letter and let them know they should have used “Advertising Material” on the brochures instead?

Granted, I’m not an attorney, so I don’t know all the ins-and-outs of having a law practice and advertising, but I would like to think if an attorney wrote to the Disciplinary Commission and asked for approval of an advertisement, or even asked if certain language was permitted, that the commission could respond with an answer to the inquiry instead of sitting on it for eight years and then filing misconduct charges against the attorney for the advertisement. Because they sometimes inform attorneys with letters to revise the language of an ad, why not do that in the case of these attorneys?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I think the rules need to provide for a safe harbor in attorney advertising materials, especially since we have to put them on file. The rules require a $50.00 filing fee so there is already a funding source to review the material. These attorneys complied with the filing requirements and even requested an opinion on their materials; what more could they do in their efforts to comply with the rule?
  • The inference is that the Commission will review something for someone they like, but can bring charges against someone they don\'t like. Sounds like favoritism to me. Whatever the policy, it should apply to all.

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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT