What did Orange County's 1993 opinion say about a lawyer's solicitation letter to an injured child's parents?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
After reading a brief accident report, a lawyer mailed an advertising letter to the parents of an injured child. The letter expressed sympathy, assessed their possible claim against the city, described a percentage-fee arrangement, said the office specialized in such cases, and offered free consultations.
The committee concluded that the sympathy appeal coupled with the solicitation violated former Rule 1-400(D)(2), given the parents' emotional circumstances and the appeal's potential undue influence. It rejected the objection that the lawyer's stated view of the suit's strength predicted the result of the representation: the view was expressly based on the limited newspaper report.
The committee also found the no-fee-without-recovery claim misleading without an explanation of potential litigation costs. It found the specialization claim misleading and said the free-consultation statement needed more detail about the financial arrangement.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993, before California's 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar's official rules page says the new rules became effective November 1, 2018. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.
Common questions
Q: Did the committee prohibit the lawyer's use of mail to contact the family?
A: No. It distinguished mail solicitation generally from the particular content and circumstances of this letter.
Q: Was the statement that the parents had a good suit a prohibited prediction?
A: The committee said no, because it was framed as a view based on a short newspaper account rather than a prediction of the representation's result.
Q: Why was the no-fee-without-recovery statement misleading?
A: The letter did not explain that the clients could still owe litigation costs, which the committee said could make the statement misleading to its recipients.
Q: What did the opinion say about the word “specializes”?
A: It treated the specialization claim as misleading under the former advertising rule.
Background and rules framework
The committee applied former California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400 and its advertising standards to the particular letter. Its analysis considered the recipient's circumstances, whether a statement predicted a result, and whether omitted cost information made the letter misleading.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- California Rules of Professional Conduct 1-400
Cases:
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn. (1988) 486 U.S. 466, 475, written solicitation and undue influence
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) 433 U.S. 350, 376-378, mailed advertising
See also
Source
- Landing page: Orange County Bar ethics opinions
- Original PDF: Formal Opinion 93-001
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1993. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace