Does a group advertising program that names participating attorneys and lists a phone line comply with the lawyer advertising rules?

Plain-English summary

The committee was of the opinion that the proposed advertisements, which would include the names of all the participating attorneys in the advertisement as broadcast, appear to comply with RPC 7.2(c).

The committee qualified its answer on the live part of the program. Because it had no way of knowing what is actually said to the consumer when responding to the telephone number listed in the advertisement, it could not determine whether the program would in fact violate RPC 7.1. It cautioned that any participating lawyer would have to ensure that nothing said would in any way be misleading or deceptive.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 7.1 and RPC 7.2(c) correspond to Model Rules 7.1 and 7.2 and were rewritten in the current rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 group ad that names every participating attorney meet the advertising rules?

A: Per the opinion, the committee was of the opinion that the proposed advertisements, naming all participating attorneys as broadcast, appear to comply with RPC 7.2(c).

Q: What about what callers are told on the phone line?

A: The committee could not determine whether that would violate RPC 7.1, because it had no way of knowing what is said to consumers who call. It cautioned that participating lawyers must ensure nothing said is misleading or deceptive.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rules then numbered Washington RPC 7.2(c) (advertising; identification requirements) and RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications), corresponding to Model Rules 7.2 and 7.1. The committee approved the published advertisement's form as apparently compliant with RPC 7.2(c) but reserved on the telephone responses, which it could not evaluate, flagging the RPC 7.1 bar on misleading or deceptive communications as the operative limit.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services), corresponding to Model Rule 7.1.
• Washington RPC 7.2(c) (advertising; identification of a responsible lawyer), corresponding to Model Rule 7.2.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1148: contacting real estate brokers and agents for closing referrals
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1051: a lawyer referral service with nonlawyer screening
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1085: a solicitation letter and brochure to a purchased list of CPAs

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=230

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1150
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 7.1; 7.3
Subject: Advertising; referral service

The Committee was of the opinion that the proposed advertisements, which would include the names of all the participating attorneys in the advertisement as broadcast, appears to comply with RPC 7.2(c). Since the Committee obviously has no way of knowing what is actually said to the consumer when responding to the telephone number listed in the advertisement, the Committee could not determine whether in fact the program would violate RPC 7.1, but cautioned that any participating lawyer would have to insure that there is nothing said which would in any way be misleading or deceptive.