Can a North Carolina lawyer run a TV ad suggesting insurers settle claims quickly just because of the lawyer's reputation?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer proposed a television advertisement showing two actors playing insurance defense lawyers discussing how to handle a serious auto-accident claim. On learning the plaintiff is represented by Lawyer A, the senior lawyer says, "Lawyer A? Let's settle this one," followed by a voiceover that "North Carolina insurance companies know the name Lawyer A." An on-screen disclaimer stated the scene was a dramatization by actors with no specific results implied. The committee was asked whether the ad complied with the rules and whether it was misleading.

The opinion concluded the ad did not comply. It applied Rule 7.1, which prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, including those likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve (Rule 7.1(b)). The committee found that the ad intentionally created the impression that the insurance company and its lawyers were anxious to settle solely because of Lawyer A's reputation, implying the decision to settle turned on who represented the claimant rather than the strength of the claim or the evidence. Because the ad was likely to create an unjustified expectation about results and misrepresented the many factors an insurer weighs in deciding whether and for how much to settle, it did not comply with the Revised Rules.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer use a dramatized television ad showing insurers eager to settle because of the lawyer?

A: The opinion held this particular ad did not comply. It found the dramatization created the impression that insurers settle solely because of the lawyer's reputation, which is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results under Rule 7.1(b).

Q: Did the "dramatization by actors" disclaimer save the ad?

A: No. The opinion found the ad misleading despite the on-screen disclaimer, because the overall impression (that the claimant's lawyer alone drives the settlement) misrepresented how settlement decisions are made.

Q: What made the ad misleading under Rule 7.1?

A: The opinion held the ad implied the decision to settle was based on the claimant's representation without regard to the strength of the claim or the evidence, creating an unjustified expectation about results and misrepresenting the factors insurers actually weigh.

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 bars false or misleading communications, including those containing a material misrepresentation, those likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, and unsubstantiated comparisons to other lawyers. The committee rested its conclusion on Rule 7.1(b)'s "unjustified expectation about results" standard.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

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-6/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

Lawyer A desires to air an advertisement on television. In the advertisement, two individuals who appear to be defense counsel for an insurance company, are seated at a table, having the following conversation:

Senior Lawyer: How do you suggest we handle this claim?

(Disclaimer appears on screen: Dramatization by actors. No specific results implied.)

Junior Lawyer: It's a large claim, serious auto accident. We could try to deny it or delay to see if they'll crack.

Senior Lawyer: Who's the lawyer representing the victim?

Junior Lawyer: Lawyer A.

(Metallic sound effect; logo of Lawyer A's firm appears.)

Senior Lawyer: Lawyer A? Let's settle this one.

Voice over by actor: North Carolina insurance companies know the name Lawyer A. If you've been injured in an auto accident…tell them you mean business.

Does the advertisement comply with the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct? Is the advertisement misleading?

Opinion:

Rule 7.1, Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services, sets forth the essential requirement for all advertising by lawyers. The rule states:

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it:

(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;

(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(c) Compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.

The advertisement in this inquiry intentionally creates the impression that the insurance company, and its lawyers, are anxious to settle a claim brought by Lawyer A solely because of his reputation. It implies that the decision to settle the claim is based upon the representation of the claimant by Lawyer A without regard for the strength of the claim or the evidence. Thus, the commercial is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results that the lawyer can achieve. Also, it misrepresents the importance of the myriad of factors that are taken into consideration by an insurance company, or its lawyers, when deciding whether and for how much a claim should be settled. Therefore, the advertisement does not comply with the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.