Can a lawyer advertise 'no recovery, no fee' or call the practice 'the firm that gets results'?

Plain-English summary

The committee said there is nothing improper in a lawyer arranging to enclose an advertisement to be mailed with monthly cable TV statements. The medium of the advertisement was not the problem.

By a vote of 7-1, the committee concluded that the statement "no recovery -- no fee" in the advertisement is misleading and of a type specifically disapproved of in Zauderer v. Ohio.

Also by a vote of 7-1, the committee concluded that the statement "the firm that gets results" constitutes a tacit comparison of the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services that cannot be factually substantiated, and therefore violates RPC 7.1(c).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments, later opinions, and court decisions on commercial speech 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer mail an advertisement with cable TV bills?

A: The committee said yes. It found nothing improper in a lawyer arranging the enclosure of an advertisement to be mailed with monthly cable TV statements.

Q: Is "no recovery -- no fee" an acceptable advertising claim?

A: No. By a 7-1 vote, the committee concluded the statement is misleading and of a type specifically disapproved of in Zauderer v. Ohio.

Q: What was wrong with "the firm that gets results"?

A: The committee concluded 7-1 that it is a tacit comparison with other lawyers' services that cannot be factually substantiated, and therefore violates RPC 7.1(c).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies RPC 7.1(c), Washington's rule on communications about a lawyer's services (the analog of Model Rule 7.1), which the committee read to prohibit unsubstantiated comparative claims. It also drew on Zauderer v. Ohio in treating "no recovery -- no fee" as a misleading statement.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services)
• Washington RPC 7.1(c) (comparisons that cannot be factually substantiated)

Cases:

• Zauderer v. Ohio, cited by the committee as disapproving the "no recovery -- no fee" type of statement.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 919: implied specialist and misleading firm name
• WSBA Ethics Op. 847: direct-mail advertising and free seminars

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=29

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 918
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s): RPC 7.1(c)
Subject: Advertisement; "no recovery -- no fee;" tacit comparison of lawyer's services with other lawyers'

The Committee was of the opinion that there is nothing improper with a lawyer arranging the enclosure of an advertisement to be mailed with monthly cable TV statements. However, by a vote of 7-1, the Committee was of the opinion that the statement in the advertisement "no recovery -- no fee" is misleading and of a type specifically disapproved of in Zauderer v. Ohio.

Similarly, by a vote of 7-1, the Committee was of the opinion that the statement "the firm that gets results" constitutes a tacit comparison of the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services which cannot be factually substantiated, and therefore violates RPC 7.1(c).