Ezel / Ethics Opinions / DCBAR
DCBAR July 19, 1994

Can a D.C. lawyer advertise that they are an expert who can help clients 'when others can't,' and does the ad have to be substantiated?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that Rule 7.1(a) permits truthful claims of specialization or expertise so long as they can be substantiated, but prohibits a comparative claim that a lawyer can help 'when others cannot' and a claim that a lawyer 'can help YOU,' because neither can be substantiated.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1994
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Opinion 249 (adopted July 19, 1994) reviewed draft yellow-pages advertising copy submitted by an immigration lawyer. The ad called him a "Nationally known IMMIGRATION attorney" who "Can Help YOU Too!", said he could "help you when others can't," and cited 28 years of practice and more than 2,150 immigration matters handled before the INS.

The committee analyzed the ad under Rule 7.1(a), which bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, including any material misrepresentation and any assertion that cannot be substantiated. It concluded that claims of specialization or expertise are not prohibited in the District, which (unlike the ABA Model Rules) rejected Model Rule 7.4's regulation of specialization claims. The lawyer's expertise claim, grounded in his disclosed years of practice and number of INS cases, was capable of substantiation and not inherently misleading, the committee concluded, assuming he could document it on request.

The committee found two statements improper. The claim that the lawyer "can help you when others can't" was a comparative claim incapable of substantiation and prohibited by Rule 7.1(a)(2) and Comment [1]. The claim that he "can help YOU" was misleading because it cannot be accurate in the abstract; the lawyer cannot know whether he can help a client until facts about the case are known. The committee declined to opine on whether the ad was misleading in any other way, explaining that it has no factfinding authority and decides matters on hypothetical facts, so without proof that consumers would be misled it would not venture further guidance.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a D.C. lawyer advertise that they specialize or are an expert in a field?

A: Yes, if substantiable. The committee concluded that the District does not prohibit specialization or expertise claims (it rejected Model Rule 7.4), so long as the claim can be substantiated under Rule 7.1(a)(2).

Q: Is it permissible to advertise that you can help clients "when others can't"?

A: No. The committee concluded that this comparative claim is incapable of substantiation and is prohibited by Rule 7.1(a)(2) and Comment [1].

Q: What was wrong with the phrase that the lawyer "can help YOU"?

A: It is misleading. The committee concluded such a claim cannot be accurate in the abstract, because the lawyer cannot know whether he can help a particular client until the facts of the case are known.

Q: Did the committee rule on the rest of the ad?

A: No. The committee declined to opine further, explaining it has no factfinding authority and decides matters on hypothetical facts, so without specific proof that consumers would be misled it would not give more guidance.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 7.1(a) (communications concerning a lawyer's services), which forbids false or misleading communications, including material misrepresentations and assertions that cannot be substantiated. The committee noted that the D.C. Court of Appeals, on the Bar's recommendation, expressly rejected ABA Model Rule 7.4's regulation of specialization claims, so the District evaluates specialization advertising solely under Rule 7.1(a)'s misleading-ness test.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • D.C. RPC 7.1(a) / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services)

Cases:

  • Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n, 110 S. Ct. 2281, 2288 (1990), a claim is judged by what reasonably may be inferred from it
  • Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, No. 93-639 (June 13, 1994), a state regulating commercial speech must show its concerns are real and that the restriction will alleviate them

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1994 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.