Could the lawyer mail similarly situated judgment debtors about a judgment he had obtained for a client?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
After obtaining an order vacating a client's judgment for insufficient service, a lawyer proposed mailing other similarly situated judgment debtors. The proposed letter would describe that result and invite recipients to contact the lawyer.
The committee said North Dakota Rule 7.1 permitted direct mail solicitation, subject to its prohibition on false or misleading communications. It compared North Dakota's rule with ABA advertising and direct-contact rules, noting that the North Dakota rule did not expressly prohibit references to a lawyer's past result.
The committee found the proposed letter generally qualified its description of the past result, with two exceptions. It asked the lawyer to remove a reference to a specific law firm and a statement that the lawyer believed he had a good chance of success on the merits. It expressly declined to endorse the letter or verify its statements.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 North Dakota Rule 7.1 categorically bar targeted mail?
A: No. The committee said direct mail solicitation was permitted under the rule, provided the communication was not false or misleading.
Q: What did the committee require the lawyer to delete?
A: It asked for deletion of a specific law firm's name and a sentence predicting a good chance of success on the merits.
Q: Did the committee approve every statement left in the letter?
A: No. It said issuance of the opinion did not endorse the letter or verify its statements.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies North Dakota Rule 7.1 and compares ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. It discusses Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988), in its analysis of targeted mail.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rule 7.1, false or misleading communications.
- ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, discussed as comparisons.
Cases:
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988).
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://www.sband.org/page/ethics_opinions
- Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000id_/https://www.sband.org/resource/resmgr/docs/for_lawyers/92-19.pdf
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1992. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct 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