ILNews

States mull attorneys' designation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


For years, Indianapolis attorney Scott Montross has been a Super Lawyer. He's been on the list and for the most part has been one of the top designees in the state time and time again.

While he doesn't have a direct issue with the validity or credibility of being named a Super Lawyer, the veteran attorney does raise concerns about how the legal profession advertises that moniker and whether it crosses any lines.

"My problem isn't with the designation specifically, as it is with the lawyers attempting to utilize that designation as some sort of endorsement of their credentials," said Montross of Montross Miller Muller Mendelson & Kennedy who's been practicing since 1971. "I've eased my way into accepting that it can be a professional and tasteful advertising tool, but my real problem lies with the whole advertising approach that can be almost misrepresenting credentials to the public."

That mindset is what's brought the Super Lawyer designation into the national spotlight in recent years, as courts and bar associations throughout the country have explored whether this newest avenue of attorney marketing raises ethical issues that must be dealt with. Some in the legal community speculate that advertising dollars or big firm vote repetition influence those rankings, even though Super Lawyers denies those claims and says the process is credible and not connected to the advertising arm.

Started by Minnesota-based magazine Law & Politics, the Super Lawyers list was first published in 1991 but gained more national recognition and prestige after expanding in 2003. Owners say it's published in most states and reaches about 11 million attorneys each year. In February, Thomson Reuters bought the publication and rating avenue and added it to its Business of Law group that offers multiple lawyer marketing and client development tools.

Hundreds of Hoosier lawyers have been tagged as Super Lawyers since it started here in 2004. The 2010 list includes 724 lawyers, a slight increase from the 713 named last year but equivalent to the number named in 2008 and 2007. The list includes about 5 percent of the Indiana bar and is published in the March issue of Indianapolis Monthly that goes to 200,000 readers, as well as Indiana Super Lawyers that's mailed to more than 18,000 state attorneys, chief corporate counsel for some of the country's largest companies, and all American Bar Association-approved law school libraries.

Designated attorneys are selected based on 13,000 ballots sent to attorneys statewide last year, with each person asked to vote for the best lawyers they had personally observed in action. Attorneys are scored based on the number of votes received, and then a research panel considers those who've practiced for at least five years and ranked highest on criteria such as verdicts and settlements, honors and awards, special licenses, and pro bono and community service history.

The designation's validity has become a more common issue throughout the country as courts and bar associations have explored whether the use in marketing should be banned or restricted. Many states have allowed attorneys to use the designations specifically, while other jurisdictions such as Indiana haven't directly addressed the issue. But last year, a years-long battle in New Jersey came to an end and that's expected to offer some guidance for others who are examining the same issues.

In November, the New Jersey Supreme Court eased the restrictions on lawyers being able to mention their inclusion in Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America, or Martindale-Hubbell AV rankings. That revision to Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1(a)(3) requires lawyers to include in ads the name of the rating service and a disclaimer saying, "No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court." State justices also added a comment advising attorneys to read carefully before touting their selections, in order to make sure the ads aren't misleading. It says the conferring service has to have made an inquiry into the attorney's fitness, the honor can't be given for a price, and that the ads must describe the methodology, or at least tell the reader where the description can be found.

Super Lawyers mostly praised the ruling that put New Jersey in line with many other states, and others are expected to follow suit - including Indiana.

Hoosier homefront

The Indiana State Bar Association's legal ethics committee has been discussing and studying this issue for years, according to past and present chairs and committee members.

"A couple of issues that seem to divide the bar on this topic is that the designation is misleading in that it is more of a 'social' type of designation rather than a true 'professional' designation such as a Martindale Hubbell rating," said Westfield attorney John Conlon, who led the ethics committee years ago and first started investigating the topic after a former bar association president asked about it. "Some also feel that attorneys from the bigger, urban firms tend to stuff the ballot box and that it is very hard for a lawyer in a smaller firm to get to be a Super Lawyer. These are all issues that have to be kept in mind, but might not necessarily fall into something rules can address."

Indiana's current professional conduct rules offer only generalities about attorney advertising and little guidance for lawyers about Super Lawyer designations for marketing. Specifically, the rules prohibit "self-laudatory" advertising, and anything that contains and expresses or implies prediction of future success.

But the Indiana Supreme Court is considering a proposed rule change that would more specifically address the issue. Public comment was open until March 1 on a proposed change to Rule 7.2, which a comment notes applies more specifically to the public communications of lawyers rather than private communications made or supported by attorneys. The method of communication is not as important as the size and nature of the audience that could receive the communication, according to the comment.

Attorney and Bloomington law professor Seth Lahn, a member of the ISBA's legal ethics committee studying this issue, said he isn't sure if the rule change would apply to specific practices such as Super Lawyer advertising.

"My interpretation is that it's designed to liberalize or expand the permissible field, to make clearer and modernize some of the rules about attorney advertising," he said. "The touchstone is ensuring that the public isn't misled, not on particular practices."

Lahn said a testimonial or endorsement could be interpreted to apply to Super Lawyers, but it's also possible to interpret the rule so that a third-party claim is permissible if the lawyer is simply restating a factual claim that's verifiable. The issue raises interesting questions, but he isn't sure if there's anything to indicate whether this is a potential problem for Indiana. Lahn said in his 12 years on the ethics committee, he's never been asked by any attorney about their proposed Super Lawyer or similar designation being an ethical issue.

Still, he recognizes that the lawyer advertising area is constantly changing and anything's possible.

This is reflective of the changing of the global legal market, and the pace of change in the legal economy and how lawyers market themselves," he said. "There are a lot of different views on how this is problematic, but there is no consensus right now short of that we aren't categorically able to say it's off limits."

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT