Can a lawyer advertise examples of past case results and the dollar amounts recovered?

Plain-English summary

The committee considered a personal injury lawyer who proposed to advertise that he had practiced more than 25 years in a particular type of case and then, under the heading "Examples of Completed Cases Handled with Associate Counsel in Multiple Jurisdictions," to list eight matters by injury type with recoveries ranging from $300,000 to $1,300,000. Assuming the lawyer in fact had the claimed experience (N.Y. State 487 (1978)), the committee analyzed whether the listing complied with the advertising rules.

It found that the proposed listing violated DR 2-101(A) (no false, deceptive, or misleading advertising), DR 2-101(B) (no claims that cannot be measured or verified), and EC 2-10 for four reasons. First, because the cases were said to be handled with associate counsel in multiple jurisdictions, there was no way to measure how instrumental this lawyer's own efforts were, though the ad implied they were decisive. Second, because outcomes depend on the merits as well as counsel's ability, there was no way to verify whether the listed results were exceptional or merely adequate, though the ad suggested they were very favorable. Third, calling the eight matters "examples" implied they were typical of all the lawyer's completed cases. Fourth, the large recoveries appeared designed to suggest the lawyer could achieve similar results for prospective clients.

The committee cited Nassau Bar Ethics Opinion 81-1 (1981) that statements about a lawyer's success rate are unverifiable and improperly suggest preeminence. It recognized that advertising guidelines are general rather than per se rules, but concluded that, as a general rule, advertising results previously obtained, in particular cases or on a statistical basis, carries so high a potential to mislead and is so unverifiable as to contravene DR 2-101. It distinguished N.Y. City 80-34 (1981), which had suggested a purely factual statement of results might be permissible in some circumstances, on the ground that the underlying facts there were not disclosed. The question was answered in the negative. The opinion was later clarified by N.Y. State 614.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009 (the bar on false or misleading communications, including unverifiable comparisons and results claims, now appears at Rule 7.1). New York's advertising rules have changed since this opinion, and it was later clarified by N.Y. State 614. 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: Can a lawyer list past verdicts and settlement amounts in an ad?

A: As a general rule, no. The committee concluded that advertising results obtained in prior cases is unverifiable and tends to mislead about likely outcomes, contravening DR 2-101.

Q: Why are example case results treated as misleading?

A: The opinion reasoned that results depend on the merits and on co-counsel, so a reader cannot verify the lawyer's contribution, and labeling cases "examples" implies they are typical of all the lawyer's results.

Q: Did the committee say any factual statement of results is allowed?

A: It distinguished but did not adopt N.Y. City 80-34 (1981), which suggested a purely factual statement of results might be permissible in some circumstances; the committee could not evaluate it because the underlying facts were not disclosed.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101(A) and (B) (no false, deceptive, misleading, or unverifiable advertising) and EC 2-10 to a lawyer advertising selected prior case results with recovery amounts. The closest current Model Rule analogue is Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), which bars false or misleading statements, including unsubstantiated comparisons and results-based claims likely to create unjustified expectations.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• NY DR 2-101, EC 2-10

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 487 (1978): claims of experience in a field of practice
• Nassau Bar Ethics Opinion 81-1 (1981): success-rate statements are unverifiable
• N.Y. City 80-34 (1981): factual statement of results, distinguished
• N.Y. State 614: later clarified this opinion

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 614: Advertising client testimonials
• NY State Bar Op. 563: Advertising discounted fees
• NY State Bar Op. 559: Advertising in a law school alumni directory

Source

• Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-539/