Can a lawyer tell the media the amount of a personal-injury settlement when that amount is not part of the public record?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned newspaper accounts of personal-injury settlements that named the parties and their addresses, stated the settlement amounts, and named the plaintiffs' attorneys and their office locations. The inquirer said about half the articles examined reported settlement amounts that were not available from public record, and asked under what circumstances a litigant's attorney could disclose to the media settlement details not in the public record.

The Committee concluded it was unethical for an attorney to divulge such details. DR 4-101(B)(1) bars a lawyer from knowingly revealing a client secret, and under DR 4-101(A) a secret includes information gained in the professional relationship whose disclosure would be embarrassing or detrimental to the client. DR 2-101(A) separately prohibits a lawyer from disseminating misleading or deceptive information about ability, experience, or fee, including statements that omit material information or are likely to create an unjustified expectation.

The Committee reasoned that releasing non-record settlement details could both embarrass the client and mislead the public. Publishing a settlement amount with the attorney's name gives an appearance of self-aggrandizement without the full picture, and could lead the public to assume the attorney's skill produced the result, when, for example, a $100,000 settlement might be reported even though the lawyer had rejected a $200,000 offer or the claim's value exceeded the defendant's policy limits. Because the client remains free to respond to media inquiries, no unreasonable restraint on information results, and the Committee found no social purpose served by the attorney's participation, so it proscribed the communication; the concern is heightened when the attorney initiates the media contact.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer tell the media a personal-injury settlement amount?

A: Not where the amount is not a matter of public record. The opinion concluded such disclosure is unethical.

Q: Why was disclosing a settlement amount treated as a confidentiality problem?

A: The opinion held that, under DR 4-101, the amount is a client secret whose disclosure could embarrass or be detrimental to the client, who may prefer to keep the matter private.

Q: What was the advertising concern?

A: The opinion reasoned that pairing a settlement amount with the lawyer's name is self-aggrandizing and could mislead the public into assuming the lawyer's skill produced the result, without the full context of the case.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted DR 4-101 (preservation of client confidences and secrets) together with DR 2-101 (publicity and advertising), before the 1984 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In current terms the analysis maps onto RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information) and RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.6 / NJ RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• MR 7.1 / NJ RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 503: Advertising Reduced Fees for Seniors and "Specialist" Claims
• NJ ACPE Op. 506: Lending a Lawyer's Name to a Client's Collection Letters

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp500-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

110 N.J.L.J. 325, September 16, 1982

OPINION 500

Personal Injury Settlement Disclosure to Media by Attorney

An inquiry has been made with respect to media publication of personal injury action settlements. We are advised that newspapers have been carrying accounts of such settlements. We are also advised that these newspaper articles state the names and addresses of the parties, the amounts of the settlements, and the names and office locations of the plaintiff's attorneys. The inquirer states that 50 percent of the newspaper articles examined reported settlement amounts not available from public record. The inquirer asks under what circumstances, if any, may a litigant's attorney disclose to the media the details of a settlement where those details are not a matter of public record.

It is our opinion that it is unethical for an attorney to divulge details of a settlement in a personal injury action where those details are not a matter of public record. DR 4-101(B)(1) precludes a lawyer from knowingly revealing a secret of his client. Under DR 4-101(A), a secret includes "information gained in the professional relationship... disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client." Additionally, DR 2-101(A) prohibits the dissemination by an attorney of any misleading or deceptive information regarding the attorney's ability, experience or fee. Misleading and deceptive information includes statements which omit material information necessary to make the statement not misleading or which are likely to create any unjustified expectation. See DR 2-101(B)(2) and (3).

An attorney's release to the media of personal injury settlement details not matters of public record could tend both to embarrass his client and mislead the public. The publication of a settlement amount in connection with an attorney's name gives the appearance of self-aggrandizement without providing a complete picture of the events leading to the final settlement, and could mislead the public into making an unwarranted assumption that the attorney's expertise or ability resulted in the settlement of the case. For example, the publication of an article that Attorney X obtained $100,000 in settlement of his client's personal injury claim would amount to a self-laudatory and misleading representation if Attorney X had previously rejected an offer of $200,000, or if the value of the claim was $200,000 but the policy limits of the defendant's insurance amounted to only $100,000.

Therefore, DR 4-101(B), when read in conjunction with DR 2-101, prohibits the disclosure by an attorney of personal injury action settlement details which are not a matter of public record. The danger of self-aggrandizement and the appearance of impropriety are exacerbated when the attorney initiates the media contact and divulges the amount of the settlement or settlement offers to be used in connection with the names of the attorneys involved. Moreover, the disclosure of a non-record settlement amount may well embarrass or tend to be detrimental to the client's interests by focusing public attention on a matter he or she would rather put behind. Since the client is free to respond to media inquiry, there is no unreasonable restraint upon the free flow of information. Consequently, there is no social purpose to be served by the participation of the attorney in such communications with the media, and such communication is therefore proscribed.