Ezel / Ethics Opinions / MOLEC

Did an informational law newsletter to clients and prospects need an advertising disclaimer?

Short answer The opinion treated it as Rule 4-7.2 advertising, but not Rule 4-7.3 targeted advertising unless it dealt with an individual prospect or situation. A contingent-fee disclaimer applied if relevant; the advertising disclaimer was unnecessary for an untargeted newsletter.
Bar
MOLEC
Issued
1995

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30, formal opinions are binding; informal opinions are advisory. Source.
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

A lawyer proposed an informative newsletter summarizing legal changes for clients and prospective clients.

The opinion called it advertising under Rule 4-7.2. It did not treat it as Rule 4-7.3 advertising unless the newsletter addressed an individual prospective client or situation involving one. The contingent-fee disclaimer was required if applicable, while the advertising-material disclaimer was unnecessary unless the newsletters were targeted.

Currency note

This 1995 opinion predates Missouri's 2007 amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. An official reference note identifies July 1, 2007 amendments to Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Was an informational newsletter advertising?

A: Yes, under Rule 4-7.2.

Q: When would Rule 4-7.3 apply?

A: When the newsletter addressed an individual prospective client or an individual situation involving that prospect.

Q: Which disclaimers did the opinion mention?

A: A contingent-fee disclaimer if applicable and an advertising disclaimer only for targeted newsletters.

Background and rules framework

The opinion distinguished general Rule 4-7.2 advertising from individual-targeted communications under Missouri Rule 4-7.3 and tied the disclaimers to those distinctions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Missouri Rule 4-7.2
  • Missouri Rule 4-7.3

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

QUESTION: Attorney proposes to send a general newsletter to clients and prospective clients. The newsletter would be informative in nature and summarize current changes in the law. Is this advertising under Rules 4–7.2 and 4–7.3? ANSWER: The newsletters would be advertising under Rule 4–7.2. Unless the newsletters dealt with an individual prospective client or an individual situation involving a prospective client, they would not be considered advertising for purposes of Rule 4–7.3. The “contingent fee” disclaimer would have to be included, if applicable. The “advertising” disclaimer would not be necessary unless the newsletters were targeted.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace