Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

Did local telephone numbers for several cities make a one-office firm’s yellow pages ad misleading?

Short answer A four-to-three committee majority found the particular ad, read as a whole with its one-office disclosure, was not misleading about office locations; it did not approve other claims in the ad.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
July 14, 1998
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A law firm with one office listed local telephone numbers under four city names in a yellow pages advertisement. The ad said that its office was in only one of those cities, using asterisks to connect the city name and disclosure.

The committee considered only whether the local numbers and office disclosure misled readers about the number of office locations. A four-member majority concluded the ad, read as a whole, was not misleading on that point. Three members disagreed. The committee could not verify the ad’s other statements about practice areas, licensure, or fees and did not preapprove them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the committee approve every statement in the ad?

A: No. It limited the opinion to the office-location issue and said it could not verify the other claims.

Q: Was the decision unanimous?

A: No. Four members voted to adopt it and three voted against it; the minority considered the advertisement misleading.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies North Dakota Rule 7.1(a) to the advertisement as a whole. The committee noted that a reader who missed the last line could believe the firm had offices in all four cities.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 7.1(a).

Cases:

  • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), lawyer advertising as commercial speech.

Other opinions cited:

  • North Dakota Opinion 97-11, limits on advance review of lawyer advertising.

See also

Source

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 1998. 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