ILNews

Updated rules to govern lawyer advertising

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Culminating a process that began five years ago, the Indiana Supreme Court has approved the first attorney advertising rule change of its kind in about a generation.

While the 20-page order amending the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct entails several revisions to the Rule 7 series, one of the most significant aspects of the new rules is a provision that prevents attorneys from “ambulance chasing,” or directly contacting potential clients immediately following an incident that might lead to a personal injury or wrongful death action.

The rules are aimed at bringing Indiana more in line with what most of the nation has already done in following model rules adopted a decade ago by the American Bar Association, and Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard says the revisions will liberalize some of the areas where the state has been more conservative on attorney advertising.

Chief Justice Shepard and three of his colleagues announced and signed the changes at the Indiana State Bar Association annual president’s dinner Thursday night. The rule changes take effect Jan. 1, 2011.

“Taken as a whole, this is a much more modern and flexible approach to the questions our profession faces, and those issues lawyers and their clients face,” the chief justice said, moments before signing the new rules alongside outgoing ISBA president Rod Morgan of Indianapolis and incoming president Jeff Lind of Terre Haute.

This was the final Indiana rule change this fall and the court held off on signing this batch of revisions until the ISBA meeting, because that’s where the process had started back in 2005, the chief justice said.

That year, then-ISBA president Clyde Compton from Merrillville announced the review would begin on the state’s advertising rules and in early 2006 a special committee began meeting to explore potential revisions. The Board of Delegates approved proposed rules in October 2006 and forwarded those to the Indiana Supreme Court’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which has reviewed and tweaked the proposal during the past four years.

Indiana has been on the conservative side of attorney advertising rules nationally, and the state hadn’t adopted changes as many other jurisdictions had after the American Bar Association offered model rules in 2000, the chief justice said.

Generally, the new rules hit on a common theme that lawyer advertising is permissible as long as it’s not false or misleading, but the court left unresolved pressing issues such as whether Super Lawyer designations should be allowed and how the state might create a review system for pre-approval. Those issues weren’t included in the proposal sent from the ISBA to the Supreme Court back in 2006.

Modernizing Section 7 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, the court has revamped the rules to embrace e-mail and technological advances in recent decades. Specifically, the changes encompass Rules 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5. They provide commentary for each revision to help attorneys understand the rationale and what the rules mean, and the changes include more focus on law firm trade names and the creation of a 30-day cooling off period before attorneys can directly solicit to potential clients after an accident or disaster.

On the cooling off period provision in 7.3(b)(3), the order states, “This restriction is reasonably required by the sensitized state of the potential clients, who may be either injured or grieving over the loss of a family member, and the abuses that experience has shown exist in this type of solicitation.”

The chief justice also highlighted how the changes liberalize Rule 7.5, which deals with law firm names and letterheads that have been the subject of litigation in recent years.

In a report to the House of Delegates today, the Lawyer Advertising Rules Committee pointed out that aside from these revisions that the court has been considering, future issues that warrant review might include: material submitted to blogs and social media and how those are subject to attorney advertising rules, and the question of when information submitted by or on behalf of lawyers to the Internet, blogs, and social media might be considered “public communication” within the meaning of the advertising rules. Those issues tie into what the ISBA Legal Ethics Committee is exploring, as it’s formed a subcommittee during the past year to address ethical issues regarding the use of social media.

A copy of the newly-signed rules can be found online here.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT