Can my firm run a newspaper ad that touts our prior 'largest jury award in New England history' if we include a disclaimer that each case is unique and results are not guaranteed?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether a proposed advertisement violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The firm would run the ad in various newspapers. It contained statements about a type of illness, its cause, symptoms, and effects, and referred to a prior verdict the firm had obtained, calling it the "largest jury award in New England history." Below that, the ad stated: "Each case is unique. This verdict does not guarantee that similar results will be obtained in any other case." It also included the Rhode Island specialization disclaimer.

The Panel applied Rule 7.1(b), which bars communications likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve. It quoted the Comment, which explained that the prohibition would ordinarily preclude advertisements about results obtained for a client, such as the amount of a damage award or a lawyer's record in obtaining favorable verdicts, because such information may create the unjustified expectation that similar results can be obtained for others without reference to the specific facts and law.

The Panel concluded that any reference to a prior favorable verdict in an advertisement violates Rule 7.1(b) as misleading, notwithstanding disclaimers like the one in the ad, so it could not condone the ad's release. As for the statements about the illness and its cause, symptoms, and effects, the Panel said it could not endorse the substance of those statements as factually true.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993 (Opinion 93-102, issued December 8, 1993), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 7.1 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, including the treatment of past results, have been amended 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer advertise a prior verdict if the ad includes a "results not guaranteed" disclaimer?

A: Under this 1993 opinion, no. The Panel concluded that any reference to a prior favorable verdict violates Rule 7.1(b) as misleading, notwithstanding such disclaimers.

Q: Why is advertising a large past award a problem?

A: The Panel relied on the Rule 7.1(b) Comment, which says advertising results like a damage award may create the unjustified expectation that similar results can be obtained without regard to the specific facts and law.

Q: Did the Panel address the ad's statements about the illness?

A: Yes, in part. It said it could not endorse the substance of the statements about the illness, its cause, symptoms, and effects as factually true.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1(b) (communications concerning a lawyer's services; unjustified expectations), the analog of Model Rule 7.1. The rule barred communications likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, and its Comment specifically identified advertising past awards and favorable verdicts as ordinarily precluded. The Panel treated a disclaimer as insufficient to cure the misleading nature of a prior-verdict reference.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.1 / RI RPC 7.1(b) (communications likely to create unjustified expectations; advertising prior results)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 91-50: a "benefits for the injured" sign is misleading under Rule 7.1
• RI EAP Opinion 93-42: advertising under partners' names while omitting the firm 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%2093-102.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 #93-102 REQUEST #454
Issued December 8, 1993

The inquiring attorney asks whether a proposed advertisement violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. The advertisement would be run by the inquiring attorney's law firm in various newspapers. The advertisement contains statements with regard to a type of illness, its cause, symptoms and effects. The advertisement also contains a statement that refers to a prior verdict obtained by the inquiring attorney's law firm and states that it is the "largest jury award in New England history . . . ." Below that statement the advertisement states that "Each case is unique. This verdict does not guarantee that similar results will be obtained in any other case." Finally, the advertisement also states that "Rhode Island does not have a procedure for certification or recognition of specialization by lawyers."

Rule 7.1(b) addresses the issue raised by this inquiry and provides as follows:

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:

(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:

The Comment to that Rule explains that:

The prohibition in paragraph (b) of statements that may create "unjustified expectations" would ordinarily preclude advertisements about results obtained on behalf of a client, such as the amount of a damage award or the lawyer's record in obtaining favorable verdicts, and advertisements containing client endorsements. Such information may create the unjustified expectation that similar results can be obtained for others without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances.

The Panel believes that any reference to a prior favorable verdict in an advertisement violates Rule 7.1(b) as being misleading notwithstanding the use of disclaimers such as the one included in the advertisement. Therefore, the Panel cannot condone the release of this advertisement.

With respect to the statements concerning the illness, its cause, symptoms and effects, the Panel cannot endorse the substance of those statements as factually true.