My firm's clients want to pay for and run an ad to recruit more class-action plaintiffs, and it praises my firm. Does the ad have to follow the lawyer advertising rules, and does this one comply?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether a proposed advertisement violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The ad would be paid for and run by a group of clients the firm represented, apparently to increase the number of parties in a class-action lawsuit. It referred to the firm several times, saying the firm "focus[es] primarily on tax issues" and provides "top notch legal representation," and that clients "will receive quality representation at a cost [they] can afford in order to receive justice."

The Panel first held that the ad was subject to the advertising rules despite being paid for and run by clients, because it contained information about legal services and therefore fell within the scope of the Rules. It then concluded the ad violated Rule 7.1, which bars false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services.

The Panel found the subjective term "top notch" inherently misleading. It found that stating the firm "focus[es] primarily on tax issues" implied a concentration, so the ad also had to state that "Rhode Island does not have a procedure for certification or recognition of specialization by lawyers" under Rule 7.4. Having found violations, the Panel cautioned that under Rule 8.4(a) it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to knowingly violate the Rules, or to do so through the acts of another.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993 (Opinion 93-101, issued December 8, 1993), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 7.1, 7.4, and 8.4 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, and the lawyer-advertising rules have been amended and reorganized over time. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does a lawyer ad have to follow the advertising rules if clients, not the lawyer, pay for and run it?

A: Yes. The Panel held the ad was subject to the advertising rules because it contained information about legal services, regardless of who paid for or ran it.

Q: Why did "top notch" violate Rule 7.1?

A: The Panel found the subjective term "top notch" inherently misleading under Rule 7.1.

Q: Why did the ad need a specialization disclaimer?

A: Stating the firm focuses primarily on tax issues implied a concentration, so the Panel said the ad also had to include the Rule 7.4 statement that Rhode Island has no procedure for certifying specialization.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), 7.4 (fields of practice and specialization), and 8.4 (misconduct), the state analogs of the corresponding Model Rules. Rule 7.1 barred false or misleading communications, including material misrepresentations, statements likely to create unjustified expectations, and unsubstantiated comparisons. Rule 7.4 required the Rhode Island specialization disclaimer where an ad implies a concentration. Rule 8.4(a) reached violations committed through the acts of another.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / RI RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services)
• MR 7.4 / RI RPC 7.4 (specialization; Rhode Island certification disclaimer)
• MR 8.4 / RI RPC 8.4(a) (misconduct; violation through the acts of another)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 90-25: a newspaper ad compliant but needing the Rule 7.4 specialization disclaimer
• RI EAP Opinion 91-50: a "benefits for the injured" sign is misleading under Rule 7.1

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2093-101.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

(0646)
FINAL

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #93-101 REQUEST #447
Issued December 8, 1993

The inquiring attorney asks whether a proposed advertisement violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. The advertisement will be paid for, and run by, a group of clients who are represented by the inquiring attorney's law firm. It appears that the purpose of the advertisement is to increase the number of parties in a class-action lawsuit. The advertisement makes several references to the inquiring attorney's law firm. It states that the inquiring attorney's law firm "focus[es] primarily on tax issues" and that the inquiring attorney's law firm provides "top notch legal representation." The advertisement indicates that clients "will receive quality representation at a cost [they] can afford in order to receive justice."

The Panel believes that the proposed advertisement is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct on advertising despite the fact that it is paid for, and run by, a group of clients. The advertisement contains information about legal services and therefore falls within the scope of the Rules.

The Panel concludes that the proposed advertisement violates Rule 7.1. That Rule states:

Rule 7.1 Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services. - A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it:

(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;

(b) 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 Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(c) compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.

The use of the subjective term "top notch" in the advertisement is inherently misleading. Further, stating that the inquiring attorney's law firm "focus[es] primarily on tax issues" implies a concentration. Thus, the advertisement must also contain language indicating that "Rhode Island does not have a procedure for certification or recognition of specialization by lawyers" pursuant to Rule 7.4.

Having concluded that the advertisement violates the Rules, the Panel cautions the inquiring attorney that under Rule 8.4(a) it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to knowingly violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or to do so through the acts of another.