Can a lawyer pull names of DUI defendants from court files and mail them solicitation letters?

Plain-English summary

An attorney pulled recent DUI files from the Circuit Clerk and mailed solicitation letters to the people charged. Each letter described the seriousness of the offense, noted that the attorney handled many such cases, enclosed certain information, solicited representation, and was clearly labeled "advertising material." The inquiry asked whether soliciting a targeted group already in litigation is permissible if it complies with Rule 7.3.

The opinion concluded that legal advertising is protected commercial speech under the First Amendment (Bates v. State Bar of Arizona; Peel v. ARDC), which the State may regulate only as necessary to protect a substantial interest. It relied on Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, which addressed nearly identical facts (a letter to people who had foreclosure suits filed against them) and held that a State may not ban targeted direct-mail solicitation merely because it is efficient or because it presents isolated opportunities for abuse.

The opinion concluded that such solicitation of a targeted group already involved in litigation is proper, and that to comply with Rule 7.3 the mailing must be truthful, not deceptive, and clearly labeled "advertising material." It cautioned that in describing experience the lawyer should take care not to violate Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice), and concluded that quoting a fee or enclosing case law or informational material does not violate the rules so long as the statements are neither false nor misleading under Rule 7.1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (referring to Rules 7.1, 7.3, and 7.4), while noting the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer mail solicitation letters to people who were just charged with DUI?

A: The opinion concluded a lawyer may send targeted direct-mail solicitations to such a group already involved in litigation if the mailing complies with Rule 7.3.

Q: What must the letter contain to be proper?

A: The opinion concluded the mailing must be truthful, not deceptive, and clearly labeled "advertising material," and must not be false or misleading under Rule 7.1.

Q: Can the letter quote a fee or describe the lawyer's experience?

A: The opinion concluded quoting a fee or enclosing case law and informational material is permissible if not false or misleading, but the lawyer must take care not to violate Rule 7.4 in describing fields of practice.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 7.3 (solicitation, including the labeling requirement for direct mail), Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications), and Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice), against the First Amendment commercial-speech doctrine of Bates and Shapero (Model Rules 7.3, 7.1, 7.4).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.3 (solicitation; direct contact) / Illinois Rule 7.3
• Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) / Illinois Rule 7.1
• Model Rule 7.4 (communication of fields of practice) / Illinois Rule 7.4

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), lawyer advertising is protected speech
• Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), targeted direct-mail solicitation may not be banned outright
• Peel v. ARDC, 496 U.S. 91 (1990); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982); Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985)

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 93-10: In-Person Solicitation of Employment
• ISBA Ethics Op. 96-02: Third-Party Solicitation on Behalf of a Lawyer
• ISBA Ethics Op. 96-01: Distribution of Materials at a Public Seminar

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9217