ILNews

IBA: Lawyer Advertising: The Truth May Not Set You Free

July 6, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By James J. Bell and Meghan J. Pitcher, Bingham McHale LLP
 

Bell James Bell

Indiana’s new advertising rules apply to more than just billboards and Yellow Page ads. Rule 7.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct defines “advertising” as “any manner of communication partly or entirely intended or expected to promote the purchase or use of professional services.” That means that the advertising rules may cover communications on your website, your blog and even on your Facebook page.

So let’s say you have just put the polishing touches on your website or bragged about yourself on Facebook. You examine your statement to see if you can verify every fact in the communication. You can. Each statement is, in fact, true. So there is no way this communication has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, right? The truth will set you free, correct? Maybe. Maybe not.

Rule 7.1 states “A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.” That is simple enough. However, the Rule also notes that a statement may be misleading if it “omits a fact” which makes it a material misrepresentation. For example, stating that you “have never lost a jury trial” may be a true, but misleading statement if in fact, you have never tried a jury trial.

Finally, Comment 2 to Rule 7.1 warns that “Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule.” Several Indiana cases have demonstrated that truthful statements may become misleading if presented in a misleading context. For example, in one case, an attorney stated to potential clients that he was “a Lawyer with 20 years of United States Marine Corps Experience.” The attorney was a lawyer and had 20 years experience with the Marines, but was not a lawyer in the Marine Corps. In re G.H. 740 N.E.2d 846, 848 (Ind. 2000). Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the statements “standing alone, were correct but [became] deceptive when considered in the context in which they were offered.” Id.

Similarly, the Court looks at the overall impact of the advertisement and the inferences that may be drawn. A law firm’s billboard advertisement contained an image of individuals with the slogan “Expect more from a [name of law firm] attorney.” All of the individuals in the image were lawyers at the firm, except one. The non-lawyer was the only African-American in the group, and the Court found that the advertisement falsely implied racial diversity amongst the attorneys in the firm. The Court found that the image paired with the slogan was misleading because not everyone in the image was an attorney – from whom you could “expect more.” In re G.G. 777 N.E.2d 1097, 1097-98 (Ind. 2002).

Stating a fact without detail and without clarifying the meaning can also be misleading. For example, an attorney placed an advertisement in a phone book that included a list of his areas of practice. Included in that list was the phrase “Prosecutor Johnson County.” The Court found the advertisement misleading, because the attorney was not the elected prosecutor, but a deputy prosecutor. In re D.C. 738 N.E.2d 1035, 1036-37 (Ind. 2000). The omission of the fact that he was a deputy prosecutor made this truthful statement misleading.

There are several lessons to be learned from the above cases: 1. Make sure your ad contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; 2. Examine your truthful advertising statements in all contexts to make certain the statements do not mislead; and 3. Finally, be as detailed as possible in your statements to ensure you do not mislead the reader.•

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. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT