Can a North Carolina lawyer advertise million-dollar jury verdicts in direct-mail letters to accident victims?

Plain-English summary

A firm wanted to include in its targeted direct-mail letters to traffic-accident victims a paragraph stating that the firm had obtained jury verdicts and settlements for individual clients "in excess of $1,000,000.00," adding that there was "no guarantee of any recovery in your case" but that the firm would provide aggressive services to maximize recovery. The committee was asked whether the jury-verdict statement could be included.

The opinion held it could not. Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, and paragraph (b) treats as misleading a communication "likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve." Comment [1] to the rule states that this prohibition "would ordinarily preclude advertisements about the results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of a damage award or the lawyer's record in obtaining favorable verdicts." A general representation about past results, without additional information putting those results in context, is misleading. The committee concluded that the letter's "no guarantee" disclaimer was not sufficient to mitigate the unjustified expectations created by advertising the jury verdicts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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, paragraph (b) and Comment [1]). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 state past million-dollar recoveries in a solicitation letter?

A: Not as a bare figure. The opinion held that advertising verdicts and settlements over $1,000,000 without context is misleading and creates an unjustified expectation about results under Rule 7.1(b).

Q: Does a "no guarantee of recovery" disclaimer make the verdict figure permissible?

A: No. The opinion held the "no guarantee of any recovery" statement was not sufficient to mitigate the unjustified expectations created by advertising the verdicts.

Q: What would put past results in context?

A: The opinion held a general representation about past results is misleading without additional information putting the results in context; it did not detail the disclosures here, but the same year's 2000 FEO 1 and RPC 239 spell out the contextual disclosures a verdict record requires.

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, focusing on paragraph (b) (communications likely to create an unjustified expectation about results) and Comment [1], which ordinarily precludes advertising the amount of a damage award or a lawyer's record of favorable verdicts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) / NC Rule 7.1(b), Comment [1]

See also

• NC State Bar Op. 2000 FEO 1: Advertising a Verdict Record
• NY State Bar Op. 539: Advertising Results in Prior Cases
• NY State Bar Op. 614: Advertising Client Testimonials

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/99-formal-ethics-opinion-7/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

ABC Law Firm wants to include the following paragraph in its targeted direct letters to traffic accident victims:

If you need a lawyer to represent you in connection with your recent accident, look no further. Our firm has obtained jury verdicts and settlements for individual clients in excess of $1,000,000.00. Although there is no guarantee of any recovery in your case, we will provide you with aggressive and comprehensive legal services to protect your rights and interests and maximize your chances of recovery.

May the statement regarding jury verdicts be included in the direct mail letters?

Opinion:

No. Rule 7.1 of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer's services. Paragraph (b) of the rule defines a false or misleading communication, in part, as a communication that "is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results the lawyer can achieve…." Comment [1] to the rule specifies that the prohibition in paragraph (b) "would ordinarily preclude advertisements about the results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of a damage award or the lawyer's record in obtaining favorable verdicts…." A general representation about past results without additional information that puts the past results in context is misleading. In the direct mail letter in this inquiry, the statement that "there is no guarantee of any recovery in your case" is not sufficient to mitigate the unjustified expectations created by the advertisement of jury verdicts proscribed by the comment to Rule 7.1.