Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA 2014-04-02

Can a New York lawyer advertise 'I know how to win for you' or claim 'unsurpassed litigation skills'?

Short answer: No. The opinion concludes both phrases violate Rule 7.1: each is misleading and cannot be factually supported when disseminated, and adding the 'prior results' disclaimer does not cure the problem.
Currency note: this opinion is from 2014
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked at the bottom of this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1005: Misleading Superlatives in Lawyer Advertising

Short answer: The advertising phrases "I know how to win for you" and "unsurpassed litigation skills" are not permitted, because each is misleading and cannot be factually supported when disseminated.

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.

About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.

View original opinion

Plain-English summary

Two inquirers ask about specific advertising phrases: one wants to use "I KNOW HOW TO WIN FOR YOU" in print and other advertising, and a firm wants to put "unsurpassed litigation skills" on its website. The question is whether either is permitted under Rule 7.1.

The opinion applies Rule 7.1(a)(1), which bars advertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading, together with Rule 7.1(d) and (e), which permit statements comparing a lawyer's services or describing their quality only if the claims do not violate Rule 7.1(a), can be factually supported as of the date disseminated, and carry the "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" disclaimer. Per Comment [3], a truthful statement is still misleading if it is substantially likely to lead a reasonable person to a conclusion about the lawyer's results for which there is no reasonable factual foundation, and Comment [12] explains that unsupportable comparative claims, like advertising oneself as the "Best," can mislead.

The opinion concludes neither phrase is permissible. It reasons that "I know how to win for you" is misleading because it suggests the lawyer can win any case regardless of its facts or legal merit, which cannot be factually supported. It reasons that "unsurpassed litigation skills" is misleading because it compares the lawyer's skills to others without factual support, like the "Best" example in Comment [12]. The committee adds that posting the "Prior results" disclaimer does not cure the defect.

In practice

Under this opinion, and under the New York rule as it stood at the time, the analysis turns on whether the advertising claim creates an impression of a result or skill level that the lawyer cannot factually support when the ad runs. Per the opinion, a sweeping promise of victory or an unsupported superlative comparison is misleading under Rule 7.1(a), and the "Prior results" disclaimer required for permissible quality claims does not rescue a claim that is misleading in the first place.

Common questions

Q: Can a New York lawyer advertise "I know how to win for you"?

A: No, under this opinion. The committee concludes (paragraphs 5 to 6) the phrase is misleading because it suggests the lawyer can win any case regardless of its facts, which cannot be factually supported.

Q: Is "unsurpassed litigation skills" allowed on a law firm website?

A: No. The opinion holds (paragraph 5) the phrase improperly compares the lawyer's skills to others without factual support, like advertising oneself as the "Best" under Comment [12].

Q: Does adding the "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" disclaimer make these phrases acceptable?

A: No. The opinion states (paragraphs 5 to 6) that the disclaimer does not cure the ethical infirmity of advertising that is misleading and not factually supportable.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1), which prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading advertising under Rule 7.1(a)(1), permits comparative and quality statements under Rule 7.1(d) and (e) only when not misleading, factually supportable, and accompanied by the "Prior results" disclaimer, and is elaborated by Comments [3] and [12].

The committee draws on its prior opinions: N.Y. State 921, finding "We will stop your foreclosure" misleading because a layperson would read it literally, and N.Y. State 877, requiring quality characterizations to be factually supported and disclaimed.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • New York RPC 7.1 (advertising; false or misleading statements; comparisons and quality claims) / Model Rule 7.1

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 921 (2012): "We will stop your foreclosure" is misleading
  • N.Y. State 877 (2011): quality characterizations must be factually supported and disclaimed

See also

Source