Can a lawyer advertise past jury verdicts, damage awards, or client testimonials, and what disclaimer is needed?

Plain-English summary

The committee reviewed a lawyer's advertisement that cited specific jury verdicts and other results obtained in particular cases. It concluded that such an advertisement, even if true, does not comply with RPC 7.1(b), which bars communications likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, unless the ad includes a sufficiently prominent disclaimer. The committee noted that Washington's RPC 7.1 is identical to ABA Model Rule 7.1 and treated the model rule's comments as instructive, since they say result claims and client endorsements ordinarily create unjustified expectations.

The committee said a sufficient disclaimer must at a minimum be displayed at least as prominently as the result claims and must lead a reasonable person to understand that the lawyer is not claiming to be able to reproduce those results in a particular case. A statement that each case is different and that prior results should not create an expectation about an individual case would suffice if it is "equally prominent," meaning in the same font and at least the same size print, and not obscured by other material. The committee also said result claims must be factually accurate, and that claims like "largest verdict" should state the date as of which they are true, since later events could make them untrue.

Finally, the committee said client testimonials and slogans that purport to convey information but are in fact meaningless, such as "attorneys who get results," "over 50 years combined experience," or "lawyers who work hard," fail RPC 7.1(b) because they convey no meaningful information and may mislead. It situated the analysis within the U.S. Supreme Court's lawyer-advertising cases, beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, which protect truthful, non-misleading advertising while allowing disclaimer requirements.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the lawyer-advertising rules (the RPC 7.x series) have been revised since. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer advertise specific jury verdicts or settlement amounts?

A: The committee said such result claims do not comply with RPC 7.1(b), even if true, unless accompanied by an equally prominent disclaimer that each case is different and that prior results do not predict outcomes.

Q: What makes a disclaimer "equally prominent"?

A: The committee said the disclaimer must be at least as prominent as the result claim, in the same font and at least the same size print, and not obscured or minimized by other language or materials.

Q: Are "largest verdict" type claims allowed?

A: The committee said such claims must be factually accurate and should state the date as of which they are true, because later events could make them no longer accurate.

Q: Are testimonial slogans like "attorneys who get results" permitted?

A: The committee said such meaningless slogans fail RPC 7.1(b) because they convey no real information to people seeking legal services and may mislead them into thinking the words mean more than they do.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted RPC 7.1 (Model Rule 7.1, communications concerning a lawyer's services), in particular RPC 7.1(b)'s bar on communications likely to create an unjustified expectation about results. The committee read Washington's rule as identical to the ABA model rule and used the model rule's comments and the U.S. Supreme Court's commercial-speech decisions to frame when a disclaimer can cure an otherwise misleading result claim.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 / Washington RPC 7.1, 7.1(b) (false or misleading communications; unjustified expectations about results)

Cases:

• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), constitutional right to advertise legal services
• In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1982), special risks of deception in legal advertising
• Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), disclaimer requirements for advertising

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Ethics Opinion 90-61 (examples of result-based advertising)

See also

• AL Ethics Op. 1993-08: Past Results in a Brochure
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1086: Solo Using 'Associates'
• WSBA Ethics Op. 178: Misleading Firm Names

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1340

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 802
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 7.1, 91-1, 97-1
Subject: Use of Testimonials and Specific Results in Advertising [Published Informal Opinion 97-1]

[Formerly published as Published Informal Opinion 97-1. This opinion is a revised version of 91-1. All Informal Opinions are consolidated in this database.]

Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides: 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...***

The Rules of Professional Conduct Committee recently had occasion to review an advertisement for a lawyer`s services which cited specific jury verdicts and other results the lawyer had obtained in specific cases. The Committee is of the opinion that such an advertisement, even if true, does not comply with RPC 7.1(b), unless it includes a sufficiently prominent disclaimer.

Rules 7.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association is identical to Washingtons RPC 7.1. The comments to the model rule, although not formally adopted as a part of Washingtons rule, are instructive. They say: 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 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.

In the opinion of the Committee, even though a statement in an advertisement may be factual, it may be misleading if it omits relevant facts and circumstances to permit a potential client to fully understand its significance. The types of statements which concern the Committee are along the line of "largest jury verdict" and "largest recovery ever obtained." A similar opinion from Alabama (#90-61) gives as examples "landlord negligently maintains common areas, tenants sprain ankles, $11,500.00"; "Insurance company wrongfully refuses to pay $2,000.00 hospital bill, $30,000.00"; "Negligent operation of automobile results in torn knee cartilage, $40,000.00"; and "Hospital and physician malpractice resulting in leg amputation, $300,000.00."

However, the Committee believes that the potential for creating unjustified expectations can be eliminated if such claims are accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. Whether a particular disclaimer is sufficient will depend on its content and the manner in which it is displayed in the context of the advertisement. A disclaimer must at a minimum (1) be displayed at least as prominently as the references to results themselves and (2) contain information that would lead a reasonable person to understand that the attorney is not claiming to be able to reproduce such results in a particular case. For example, a statement in a printed advertisement about the results in a particular case would not, in the Committee`s opinion, violate the rule if accompanied by an equally prominent statement to the effect that each case is different and that prior results should not create an expectation about results in an individual case. The Committee believes that a disclaimer is "equally prominent" if contained in the same font and at least the same size print as the claims themselves, and its import is not obscured or minimized by other language or materials in the advertisement.

The Committee also believes that statements in printed advertisements about results in particular cases must be factually accurate. This may, in particular cases, require information to be included that limits the import of the statements. For example, statements about "largest award" or "largest verdict" should indicate the date as of which these statements are true since there may have been events subsequent to the publication of the advertisement that would make the statements no longer true.

Similarly, the Committee is of the opinion that client testimonials and statements that purport to convey information but in fact are meaningless fail to comply with RPC 7.1(b). Examples are "Attorneys who get results" and "Over 50 years combined experience" and "Lawyers who work hard." Such statements fail to convey any meaningful information to persons seeking legal services, and may mislead the unwary consumer into believing that they mean more than they do.

The United States Supreme Courts opinions on lawyer advertising, beginning with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 53 L. Ed.2d 810 (1977), have made it clear that lawyers have a constitutional right to advertise, but that those advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading. Quoting Bates, the Court has said that it "recognized that advertising by professions poses special risks of deception —because the public lacks sophistication concerning legal services, misstatements that might be overlooked or deemed unimportant in other advertising may be found quite inappropriate in legal advertising." In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 200, 102 S. Ct. 929, 71 L. Ed.2d 64 (1982). However, the Court has also stated that "because disclosure requirements trench much more narrowly on an advertisers interests than do flat prohibitions on speech, warning[s] or disclaimer[s] might be appropriately required...in order to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception." Zauderer v. Ohio Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 105 S. Ct. 2265, 2282 (1985).