3.15 Public Representation of Services

Question 1

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)

Answer 1

Cannot do false or deceptive advertising.

Cannot pressure, such as in person solicitation.

Reasonable Restrictions on Time, Place, and Manner

Question 2

Communications Concerning a Lawyers Services, SHALL NOT

Answer 2

Make a False or Misleading Communication About:

Lawyer

Lawyers Services

Question 3

False or Misleading =

Answer 3

Material Misrepresentation of Fact
- Omits Fact
- Leading Reasonable Person to
- Truthful Statements IF 
NOTE: Dignity is NOT the Standard

Question 4

Omits Fact

Answer 4

“Necessary to Make Statement
Taken as a Whole
Not Materially Misleading”

Question 5

Leading Reasonable Person to

Answer 5

“Form Unjustified Expectation that Same Result will Occur WITHOUT Reference to Specified Factual and Legal Circumstances OR

Unsubstantiated Comparison of Services and Fees of Other Lawyers IF

• Presented with Specificity
• Would Lead Reasonable Person to Belief it Can Be Substantiated.”

Question 6

Truthful Statements IF

Answer 6

There is Substantial Likelihood Will Lead a Reasonable Person to Formulate Specific Conclusion For Which There is NO Basis in Fact

Question 7

Advertising

Answer 7

MAY Advertise

SHALL NOT Pay Other to Recommend EXCEPT

SHALL Include Name and Office Address of AT LEAST 1 Lawyer or Firm Responsible for the Content

Question 8

SHALL NOT Pay Other to Recommend EXCEPT

Answer 8

Lawyer MAY Pay Reasonable Costs of Advertising

Pay Usual Fee of Qualified Non-Profit Legal Service Referral Service

Pay for a Law Practice, Including the Sellers Recommendation to Stay with the Parctice

Refer to Another Lawyer or Non-Lawyer (Including Related Business) According to NON-Prohibited Agreement IF:

• Reciprocal Referral NOT Exclusive AND
• Client is Informed of the Existence and Nature of the Agreement
• NOTE: Must NOT Interfere with Lawyers Professional Judgment

Question 9

Solicitation, Direct Contact with Prospective Clients

Answer 9

“Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar (1978)

• In-Person Solicitation May Exert Pressure and Often Demands an Immediate Response
• States Perception of the Potential for Harm Presented is Well-Founded
• THEREFORE, Not Unreasonable / Constitutional, for a State to Respond with Prophylactic Rules

In re Primus (1978)

• Protection for Addressing Large Gatherings About Their Rights
• Permissible BecausePersonal Solicitation was IN WRITING and POLITICAL Character Seeking to Redress Wrong to Many
• Practicing Attorney Working for LOCAL NON-PROFIT Bottom Line = Involves Civil Rights and NOT for Pecuniary Gain”

Question 10

Solicitation SHALL NOT

Answer 10

“Make In-Person, Live Telephone or Real-Time Electronic Contact to Silicate Professional Employment WHEN Significant Motive is PECUNIARY GAIN

UNLESS Person Contacts, Lawyers, OR Has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.

BUT SHALL NOT IF Prospective Client Made KNOWN Desire NOT to be Solicited OR Coerce, Duress, or Harass”

Question 11

MUST Include ADVISORY MATERIAL

Answer 11

“on Permissible [Written / Not Real-Time] Communications

UNLESS Person Contacts, Lawyer, OR Has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.

NOTE: This allows targeted direct mail to victims

NOTE: Some state bars do prohibit such communications for a specified time (30 days) following certain accidents.

NOTE: Insurance Companies Do Not Have Same Restriction, they can go after waivers immediately . . . Are those rules in victims best interest.”

Question 12

MAY Participate

Answer 12

“Prepaid or Group Legal Services Plan (Opt-In for Free Consultations, Reduced Fees, Etc. for Plan Members and Specified Services // HMO)

Not Operated by Lawyer

Not Owned by Lawyer

Uses Direct Contact Solicitation Lawyers Cannot Use”

Question 13

COMMUNICATION OF FIELDS OF PRACTICE / SPECIALIZATION, MAY

Answer 13

Communicate Does or Does Not Practice in Particular Fields

Admitted to Patent Practice by USPTO MAY Claim Patent Attorney, Engaged in Admiralty MAY Claim Proctor in Admiralty, Generally claim Specialist but Strictly Subject to False and Misleading Communications Standards

Question 14

COMMUNICATION OF FIELDS OF PRACTICE / SPECIALIZATION, SHALL NOT

Answer 14

State or Imply Certified Specialty

UNLESS- Certified by appropriate organization (bona fide) under appropriate state authority or ABA (claims it, but the basis is questionable) AND-Clearly Names and Identifies the Organization

Question 15

FIRM NAMES AND LETTERHEAD, SHALL NOT

Answer 15

In Violation of Communications Rules Use Firm-Name-Letterhead-Other Professional Designation

Question 16

Former Partner Holding Public Office

Answer 16

MAY NOT USE Name of Former Partner Holding Public Office DURING any SUBSTANTIAL Period in Which the Lawyer is NOT Actively or Regularly Practicing

Question 17

MAY use Trade Name IF

Answer 17

Does NOT Imply Connection to Government, Charitable Legal Service AND

Does NOT Violated Communications Rules

Question 18

MAY use Same Firm Name in Multiple Jurisdictions BUT

Answer 18

Must Indicate Jurisdictional Limitations on Each Lawyer

Question 19

MAY State or Imply Professional Affiliation ONLY

Answer 19

When FACT

Question 20

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO OBTAIN LEGAL ENGAGEMENTS OR APPOINTMENT BY JUDGES, SHALL NOT

Answer 20

“Accept Government Legal Engagement OR Appointment by Judge IF

• Lawyer or Firm Makes a Political Contribution OR Solicits Political Contributions FOR
• Purpose of Obtaining or Being Considered for Such= CANNOT PAY TO PLAY

Even when bar cannot regulate the non-lawyer politician, Does NOT Restrict Contribution (1st Amend.), Only RESTRICTS the Acceptance of the Appointment “