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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT