Can a Mississippi lawyer advertise through a 'blind' ad like a 'Legal Hotline' that does not give the name of any responsible lawyer?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether an individual, partnership, law firm, or group of sole practitioners may advertise in Mississippi through "blind advertising" such as a "Personal Injury Hotline" or "Legal Hotline" that does not furnish the name of the responsible lawyer or lawyers.

The opinion explained that attorney advertising in Mississippi is permitted subject to Rules 7.1 through 7.7, with Rule 7.1 barring false, deceptive, or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer's services, and these rules governing all communications about a lawyer's services. The opinion concluded the proposed blind advertising fails to meet Rule 7.2(d), which requires that all advertisements and written communications include the name of at least one lawyer or the lawyer referral service responsible for their content.

The opinion noted that Opinion Numbers 146 and 162 addressed similar circumstances and held that, for an advertisement to be permissible under Rule 7.1, the requirements of Rule 7.2 must be met. It concluded that blind advertisements do not meet Rule 7.2(d) because they do not provide the name of at least one responsible lawyer, and so are not ethical and proper in Mississippi.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Mississippi lawyer may not run a blind advertisement, such as a hotline name, that omits the name of at least one lawyer responsible for the content (Rule 7.2(d)). The opinion holds that public communications about the availability of legal services must identify at least one responsible lawyer.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise under just a hotline name like "Legal Hotline"?

A: The opinion concluded no. Rule 7.2(d) requires the name of at least one responsible lawyer or lawyer referral service, and a blind ad that omits it is not ethical and proper.

Q: What rule makes blind advertising improper?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 7.2(d), read with Rule 7.1; an advertisement must meet Rule 7.2's requirements, including naming a responsible lawyer, to be permissible.

Q: Does this apply to all public communications about legal services?

A: The opinion states that blind advertisements, as well as other public communications regarding the availability of legal services, must include the name of at least one responsible lawyer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 (false, deceptive, or misleading communications), 7.2(d) (naming a responsible lawyer in advertising), and the advertising framework of Rules 7.1 through 7.7. These correspond to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 7.1 (false, deceptive, or misleading communications) (cf. Model Rule 7.1)
• MRPC 7.2(d) (advertising must name a responsible lawyer or referral service) (cf. Model Rule 7.2)
• MRPC 7.7 (firm names and professional designations)

Other opinions cited:

• Mississippi Bar Opinion Nos. 146 and 162: advertisements must meet Rule 7.2 to be permissible under Rule 7.1.

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 191: Misleading Branch Office Name
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 264: Lead Generator Using Another Lawyer's Name
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 252: Law Firm Websites

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/182/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1054/et_op_182-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 182

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED March 09, 1991

AMENDED April 06, 2013

ADVERTISING - It is not ethically proper for an attorney to advertise his/her services through the use of advertisements which do not identify the name or names of the attorney responsible for such advertisements.

The Ethics Committee of The Mississippi Bar has been requested to render an opinion on the following question:

Is it ethically permissible for an individual, partnership, law firm or group of sole practitioners or law partnerships to advertise in the State of Mississippi through blind advertising (i.e. "Personal Injury Hotline", "Legal Hotline", etc.)? The advertisement in question does not furnish the name of the lawyer(s) responsible therefor.

Advertising by attorneys in the State of Mississippi is permissible subject to the confines and requirements of MRPC 7.1 through 7.7 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"). Rule 7.1, MRPC provides that "A lawyer shall not make a false, deceptive or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. These rules govern all communications about a lawyer's services in the State of Mississippi, including advertising as permitted by Rule 7.2, MRPC.

The method of advertising presented to the Ethics Committee in the above factual situation fails to meet the requirements of Rule 7.2(d), MRPC, which provides "All advertisements and written communications provid3ed for under these rules shall include the name of at least one lawyer or the lawyer referral service responsible for their content."

"Blind advertisements", as well as other public communications regarding the availability of legal services, must include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for the content of such communication.

Ethics Opinion Numbers 146 and 162, addressed circumstances similar to those presented hereinabove. Even though none of these opinions addressed the question of "blind advertisements" per se, each held that for an advertisement to be permissible under MRPC Rule 7.1, the requirements of MRPC Rule 7.2 must be met. Clearly, "blind advertisements" do not meet the requirements of MRPC 7.2(d) in that the name of at least one lawyer responsible for the content of the advertisement is not provided. Such advertisements would, therefore, not be considered ethical and proper in the State of Mississippi.