WSBA 1992

Can a lawyer run an ad headed 'public notice' that is brief on the details?

Short answer: The committee concluded the advertisement violated RPC 7.1 because the 'public notice' caption implied an official or governmental notice, and its brevity omitted facts needed to keep it from being materially misleading.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer submitted an advertisement for review. The committee was of the opinion that it was misleading and in violation of RPC 7.1 in at least two respects. First, the caption "public notice" implies that it is some form of official or governmental notice. Second, the committee was of the opinion that the balance of the advertisement is misleading because, by its brevity, it omits facts necessary to make the statement not materially misleading.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why did the committee find the "public notice" caption misleading?

A: Because the caption implies that the advertisement is some form of official or governmental notice, which the committee found violated RPC 7.1.

Q: What was the second problem with the advertisement?

A: The committee found that the ad's brevity omitted facts necessary to keep the statement from being materially misleading.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 7.1. The committee identified two ways the ad was misleading: a caption suggesting official status, and an omission of facts that the brevity of the ad made material.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications); Washington RPC 7.1

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=579

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1499
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 7.1
Subject: Advertisement; "public notice" caption and omission of necessary facts misleading

The Committee reviewed your advertisement which you submitted. The Committee was of the opinion that it was misleading and in violation of RPC 7.1 in at least two respects. First, the caption "public notice" implies that it is some form of official or governmental notice. Secondly, the Committee was of the opinion that the balance of the advertisement is misleading in that by its brevity it omits facts necessary to make the statement not materially misleading.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1992 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.