Communications About Legal Services · 4-10% of the exam
21.1.1False or misleading communications (Rule 7.1)
On this page
- Rule 7.1 — False or Misleading Communications
Every lawyer communication (ad, website, letterhead, pitch) runs through one question: does it create a false impression? Rule 7.1 reaches beyond outright lies. A technically accurate statement that omits a critical qualifier still violates the rule, and so does an ad implying results no disclaimer would justify.
Why
Legal services are hard for a non-lawyer to evaluate before buying, and are often bought once, under pressure, at the worst moment of someone's life. A buyer in that position has little chance of testing a claim before acting on it. The burden of accuracy has to sit with the person making the claim.
Plain English
Any public statement about legal services must not leave readers with a false sense of what the lawyer can deliver. That covers:
- past results,
- unsubstantiated claims about a lawyer's services or fees and unsubstantiated comparisons with other lawyers,
- conclusions about the lawyer for which there is no reasonable factual foundation, and
- claims that could leave a reasonable person thinking they have to act when they don't.
Rule
Rule 7.1 — False or Misleading Communications
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:
Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law; OR
Omits a fact necessary to make the statement, considered as a whole, not materially misleading.
A truthful statement is still misleading if it:
Comment [3]: creates an unjustified expectation of results based on past results without appropriate caveat (e.g., "I've never lost a case"; "I won $5 million in my last four trials");
Comment [3]: contains an unsubstantiated claim about the lawyer's or the firm's services or fees, or an unsubstantiated comparison with the services or fees of other lawyers, presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the claim or comparison can be substantiated (e.g., "No practice within a hundred miles delivers verdicts at our rate");
Comment [2]: creates a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to form a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer's services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation; OR
Comment [2]: creates a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would believe further action is required when no action is required.
Cure (Comment [3]): Appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language (e.g., "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome") can prevent an otherwise-misleading statement from being a violation.
Example 1
Ex. 1
Ana's television ad states: "I recovered $4 million for my last client in an auto-accident case." No disclaimer accompanies the ad. She argues the statement was literally true and that no one suffered harm because a second client's case turned on different facts.
Test Ana's defense against what the rule actually asks for. The argument fails. Rule 7.1 doesn't require proof of harm or reliance. The ad created an unjustified expectation of similar results by publicizing a specific dollar outcome without qualifying language. Adding "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" would have cured the violation. The violation is complete at the moment of broadcast.
Example 2
Ex. 2
Ben publishes a headline banner on his website: "Nobody in this state secures verdicts at the rate we do — check the numbers yourself." No prospective client relies on the claim, and none can point to measurable harm. He argues discipline requires proof of actual harm or reliance.
Watch what Ben's invitation to check the numbers doesn't supply: the numbers. That defense goes nowhere. An unsubstantiated claim or comparison presented as if verifiable is misleading on its face. Harm and reliance aren't required — the violation is complete at the moment of publication. Prongs other than outright falsity — unjustified expectation, unsubstantiated claim or comparison, a conclusion with no reasonable factual foundation, a statement that would make a reasonable person believe further action is required when none is, and omission — all reach technically accurate statements.
Rule 7.1 governs all communications about legal services, including firm names, letterheads, and in-person pitches.
Questions · 1
Q 01ch21-e01
Question 1 of 1 · Rule 7.1
Attorney practices in a farming county and handles crop-insurance disputes for grain growers. Last spring Attorney won an arbitration award of nine hundred thousand dollars for Client, whose stored harvest had been ruined by a faulty dryer. Attorney then bought the back cover of the county fair program, a booklet delivered to every household in the district. The advertisement states in one line that Attorney recovered nine hundred thousand dollars for a local grower last spring, and it gives Attorney's name, office address and telephone number. The figure is accurate. Nothing on the page qualifies it or explains that every claim turns on its own facts. No reader has yet telephoned the office about the advertisement. Is Attorney subject to discipline?
Keys 1 to 4 choose.