Can an Ohio lawyer advertise the settlement or verdict amounts won in past cases?
Ohio BPC Opinion 2002-007: Advertising Past Settlement or Verdict Amounts
Short answer: The opinion concluded that it is improper for an attorney or law firm to list past settlement or verdict amounts in advertising legal services.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct'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. The opinion text is reproduced at the bottom; the official source (linked) controls.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2002, before Ohio's adoption of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (effective February 1, 2007). The Board flagged it as a "CPR Opinion" because it interprets the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, since superseded. The DR 2-101 advertising provisions discussed here are now addressed by Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.1. Court decisions and rule amendments have also reshaped lawyer-advertising regulation since 2002. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Plain-English summary
The Board addressed whether a lawyer may advertise the dollar amounts of settlements or verdicts obtained in past cases. It concluded that listing such amounts is improper under DR 2-101(A)(1) and (4). The Board reasoned that statements like "Trip/Fall sidewalk-brain injury, $1,000,000 verdict" or "Dog bite, $50,000 settlement" are misleading and self-laudatory and may be unfair, because a past result does not predict the outcome of a different case and the figures invite the public to expect comparable recoveries.
The Board added that confidential settlement amounts are unverifiable, which compounds the problem: a reader cannot test the accuracy of a figure the lawyer is not free to confirm.
Common questions
Q: Could an Ohio lawyer list past verdict and settlement dollar amounts in an ad?
A: No. The opinion concluded that listing past settlement or verdict amounts is improper under DR 2-101(A)(1) and (4) because the figures are misleading, self-laudatory, and may be unfair.
Q: Why did the opinion treat the amounts as misleading rather than factual?
A: The opinion reasoned that a past result does not indicate what a different case will yield, so advertising the amounts invites unwarranted expectations, and confidential settlement figures are also unverifiable.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101(A)(1) (no false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive communication) and DR 2-101(A)(4) (no communication that is unverifiable or that compares quality of services where the comparison cannot be substantiated), with the general advertising standard now found in Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101(A)(1), DR 2-101(A)(4), DR 2-101(C)
See also
- Ohio BPC Op. 2000-006: Client Testimonials, Client Names, and Case Links on a Law Firm Web Site
- Ohio BPC Op. 1989-024: Client Testimonials in Advertising
- Ohio BPC Op. 1988-028: Advertising Cases Not Handled
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-02-007.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 2320, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6104
(614) 644-5800 (888) 664-8345 FAX: (614) 644-5804
www.sconet.state.oh.us
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 2002-7
Issued June 14, 2002
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded
by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
SYLLABUS: In advertising legal services, it is improper under DR 2-101(A)(1) and (4)
for an attorney or law firm to list settlement or verdict amounts obtained in past cases.
Statements such as “Trip/Fall sidewalk-brain injury, $1,000,000 verdict” or “Dog bite,
$50,000 settlement” are misleading, self-laudatory, and may be unfair. In addition,
confidential settlement amounts are unverifiable.
OPINION: This opinion addresses a question regarding legal advertisements that
contain statements regarding past results obtained for clients.
In advertising legal services, is it proper for an attorney or law firm to list
settlement or verdict amounts obtained in past cases?
The Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility regulates lawyer advertising in DR 2-101
through DR 2-105. The disciplinary rule relevant to this opinion is DR 2-101(A).
DR 2-101(A) A lawyer shall not, on his or her own behalf or that of a
partner, associate, or other lawyer affiliated with the lawyer or the
lawyer’s firm, use, or participate in the use of, any form of public
communication, including direct mail solicitation that:
1. Contains any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-
laudatory, or unfair statement;
2. [Omitted];
3. [Omitted];
4. Contains any claim that is not verifiable;
5. [Omitted].
The issue to be decided is whether an advertisement listing past cases and settlement or
verdict amounts constitutes a misleading, self-laudatory, or unfair statement, or an
unverifiable claim.
Op. 2002-7 2
Is it a misleading statement?
DR 2-101(C) provides guidance as to what constitutes misleading communication.
DR 2-101(C) A communication is false or misleading if it satisfies any of
the following:
(1) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a
fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not
materially misleading;
(2) Is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the
lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can
achieve results by means that violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility or other law;
(3) Is subjectively self-laudatory, or compares a lawyer’s services
with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be
factually substantiated.
A listing of past cases, either by type of case or by case name, followed by the settlement
or verdict amount is misleading to consumers of legal services. A list of settlement and
verdict amounts lacks information as to the strengths and weaknesses of cases, severity of
damages, information as to credibility of witnesses, availability of insurance coverage, or
other factors that influence the settlement or verdict amounts. The absence of references
to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each case makes the listing of cases and
settlement or verdict amounts misleading.
Even though truthful, a statement may be misleading. As explained in Comment (3) to
ABA Model Rule 7.1 [prohibiting false or misleading communication], “[a]n
advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients or
former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form
an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in
similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each
client’s case.”
Further, the listing of a settlement or verdict is misleading because it creates unjustified
expectations about what cases are worth. If the public sees “Trip/Fall sidewalk-brain
injury, $1,000,000 verdict” the public may easily assume that a sidewalk fall on the head
will result in a big money recovery. If the public sees “Dog bite, $50,000 settlement,” in
an advertisement, the public may easily assume that dog bite cases are worth at least that
much.
In other states, ethics committees have advised that statements of past case results create
unjustified expectations of results that a lawyer can achieve, unless enough information is
provided. See, e.g., Alabama State Bar, Op. 90-61 (1990); North Carolina State Bar, Op.
Op. 2002-7 3
2000-1 (2000); Pennsylvania Bar Ass’n 87-129 (1987). What is enough information?
The North Carolina State Bar advisory committee suggests: “To put a verdict record in
context, information about the lawyer’s or the law firm’s record must include disclosure
of the following: the lawyer’s or firm’s history of obtaining unfavorable, as well as
favorable, verdicts and settlements; the lawyer’s or firm’s success in actually collecting
favorable verdicts; the types of cases handled and their complexity; whether liability
and/or damages were contested; and whether the opposing party or parties were
represented by legal counsel. In addition, the verdict record must disclose the period of
time examined. Finally, the communication must include a statement that the outcome of
a particular case cannot be predicated upon a lawyer’s or a law firm’s past results.”
North Carolina State Bar, Op. 2000-1 (2000). While, this Board agrees that additional
information suggested by the North Carolina advisory committee would decrease the
possibility of misleading consumers, there are additional concerns to consider under the
disciplinary rules.
Is it a self-laudatory statement?
A lawyer’s statements in an advertisement about how much a lawyer achieved for a client
in a settlement or verdict amount is self-laudatory. There is no acknowledgment of the
merits of the case. It is pure self-praise for the lawyer. The advertisement emphasis is on
the strength of the lawyer, not the strength of the case.
Is it an unfair statement?
If there is no reference to the cases with no recovery, the statements of settlement or
verdict amounts are unfair statements. A list of settlement and verdict amount obtained,
without reference to any zero recoveries, imparts to the public that the lawyer has a
perfect record of winning cases.
Is it an unverifiable claim?
A verdict amount is verifiable through public records, but a settlement amount may or
may not be verifiable. Settlement agreements are sometimes confidential, thus, the
settlement amount would not be verifiable through public record or otherwise.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this Board advises that in advertising legal services, it is improper under
DR 2-101(A)(1) and (4) for an attorney or law firm to list settlement or verdict amounts
obtained in past cases. Statements such as “Trip/Fall sidewalk-brain injury, $1,000,000
verdict” or “Dog bite, $50,000 settlement” are misleading, self-laudatory, and may be
unfair. In addition, confidential settlement amounts are unverifiable.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions
regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Op. 2002-7 4
Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the
Attorney’s Oath of Office.