Can a North Carolina law firm advertise its record of verdicts and settlements on its website?

Plain-English summary

A law firm wanted to describe its medical malpractice group's record of verdicts and settlements on its new website, including statements that the group had been "enormously successful," "consistently obtaining verdicts and settlements" among the largest reported in North Carolina each year, along with disclaimers that past success was not a representation of future results and that not every case had been favorable. The committee was asked whether the page complied with the rules.

The opinion applied Rule 7.1: a website, like any advertisement, must be truthful and not misleading. Statements about a lawyer's or firm's record of favorable verdicts are generally prohibited because they may create unjustified expectations about results under Rule 7.1(b), but the potential to mislead can be avoided if the information is provided in context. Drawing on 99 Formal Ethics Opinion 7, the committee held that a verdict record must disclose the firm's history of unfavorable as well as favorable outcomes; its success in actually collecting favorable verdicts; the types of cases handled and their complexity; whether liability or damages were contested; whether the opposing parties were represented by counsel; the period of time examined; and a statement that the outcome of a particular case cannot be predicted from past results. If the disclosures are voluminous, the firm may offer to mail a full list free on request, but that option does not relieve the firm of providing context in any communication that references a verdict record.

Applying this to the firm's page, the opinion found that the page appropriately disclosed that most cases were defended, that they involved complex medical issues, that all verdicts obtained were collected, and that past success does not predict future results. But the subjective statements, calling the firm "enormously successful," claiming it "consistently" obtained verdicts and settlements, and asserting that its results were "among the largest reported in North Carolina each year," were misleading because the page did not provide enough explanation of the firm's actual record. To comply, the firm needed to disclose the number of cases handled each year, the number of favorable and unfavorable settlements, and the time frame examined.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, before North Carolina's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and it cites the advertising rule under the numbering then in effect (Rule 7.1, including subsection (b)). 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 requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Carolina law firm advertise the verdicts and settlements it has won?

A: The opinion held a firm may, but only in context. A bare claim of favorable results is generally prohibited under Rule 7.1(b) as creating unjustified expectations; the firm must disclose the surrounding facts that keep the record from misleading.

Q: What disclosures put a verdict record in context?

A: The opinion required disclosure of unfavorable as well as favorable outcomes, the firm's success in collecting verdicts, the types and complexity of cases, whether liability or damages were contested, whether opponents had counsel, the time period examined, and a statement that past results do not predict any future case.

Q: Are subjective phrases like "enormously successful" acceptable?

A: No. The opinion found phrases such as "enormously successful," "consistently obtaining verdicts and settlements," and verdicts "among the largest reported in North Carolina each year" misleading without enough explanation of the firm's actual record.

Q: Can the firm just offer the full record by mail instead of putting it in the ad?

A: The opinion allowed offering a complete list free by mail when disclosures are voluminous, but held that this does not relieve the firm of providing context in any communication that references a verdict record.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied North Carolina Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), the analogue to Model Rule 7.1, which prohibits false or misleading communications, including those likely to create unjustified expectations about results (Rule 7.1(b)). It relied on RPC 239 and 99 Formal Ethics Opinion 7 for the contextual disclosures required before a verdict record may be advertised.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) / NC Rule 7.1, including 7.1(b)

Other opinions cited:

• NC RPC 239 and 99 Formal Ethics Opinion 7: a verdict record must be presented in context to avoid creating unjustified expectations

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 539: Advertising Results in Prior Cases
• NY State Bar Op. 614: Advertising Client Testimonials
• ABA Formal Op. 10-457: Lawyer Websites

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/2000-formal-ethics-opinion-1/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry

Law Firm is setting up a site or "web page" on the world wide web. The web page will provide information about the law firm and the members of the firm. May Law Firm include the following paragraph in its web page

The attorneys in Law Firm's medical malpractice group have been enormously successful, consistently obtaining verdicts and settlements for their clients that are among the largest reported North Carolina verdicts and settlements each year. Most medical negligence cases involve complex scientific issues and are vigorously defended. Settlements generally only occur after litigation has ensued and all sides have fully explored the issues through discovery. We have collected all of the verdicts we have obtained, although some verdicts have been collected only after we have been successful not only at trial, but also on appeal. Our past successes should not be construed as a representation that we will be successful with any particular case in the future, and not every case in which we have been involved has resulted in a favorable outcome. The medical malpractice group has successfully represented clients in cases of infant mortality and morbidity, eye injury, paralysis, infectious disease, loss of limb, general surgery, physical disability, medication errors, and wrongful death. The medical malpractice group has also successfully defended University Medical Center and its physicians against medical malpractice actions. Finally, the medical malpractice group has successfully represented clients before the North Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and, in some instances, has been instrumental in shaping North Carolina law

Opinion

A web page, like any other communication or advertisement about a lawyer's or a law firm's services, must be truthful and not misleading. Rule 7.1 of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct and RPC 239. Generally, statements about a lawyer's or a law firm's record in obtaining favorable verdicts is considered a prohibited communication in that such statements may create "unjustified expectations about the results the lawyer can achieve" in violation of Rule 7.1(b). However, if the information is provided in context, the potential for this information to mislead a reader may be avoided. 99 Formal Ethics Opinion 7. To put a verdict record in context, information about the lawyer's or the law firm's record must include disclosure of the following: the lawyer's or firm's history of obtaining unfavorable, as well as favorable, verdicts and settlements; the lawyer's or firm's success in actually collecting favorable verdicts; the types of cases handled and their complexity; whether liability and/or damages were contested; and whether the opposing party or parties were represented by legal counsel. In addition, the verdict record must disclose the period of time examined. Finally, the communication must include a statement that the outcome of a particular case cannot be predicated upon a lawyer's or a law firm's past results

If information to be disclosed is voluminous, the communication may state that a list of all cases handled by the lawyer or law firm during a disclosed time period, including the required background information and explanation, will be mailed free of charge upon request. However, the availability of such a mailing does not relieve the lawyer or the law firm of the obligation to provide a context in an advertisement or communication if it contains any reference to a verdict record.

In the instant inquiry, Law Firm's web page appropriately discloses that most of its cases were defended, that the cases involved complex medical issues, that all verdicts obtained were collected, and that past success is not a predictor of future success in any particular case.

However, subjective statements, such as references to Law Firm as "enormously successful" and "consistently obtaining verdicts and settlements" as well as the statement that Law Firm's verdicts and settlements are "among the largest reported in North Carolina each year," are misleading. Although Law Firm has made an effort to avoid creating unjustified expectations, the web page does not provide enough explanation of Law Firm's record to avoid misleading a visitor to the website. Providing a complete record by mail, disclosing the number of cases handled each year, the number of favorable and unfavorable settlements obtained, and the time frame examined, are necessary to bring the web page into compliance with the requirements of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct