ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Kevin P. McGoff 

Tammy J. Meyer 

John C. Trimble

ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT 

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary 

Charles M. Kidd, Staff Attorney 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

0BIn the 

1BIndiana Supreme Court 

_________________________________ 

No. 49S00-0402-DI-82 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

 

SCOTT A. BENKIE, 

 Respondent.

_________________________________ 

No. 49S00-0402-DI-83 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

 

DOUGLAS A. CRAWFORD, 

 Respondent.

_________________________________ 

Attorney Discipline Action 

Hon. Karen M. Love, Hearing Officer 

_________________________________ 

September 4, 2008 

Per Curiam. 

This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer appointed by this 

Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's "Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action" in each of these cases and the post-hearing pleadings of the 

parties. We find that Respondents, Scott A. Benkie and Douglas A. Crawford, engaged in attorney misconduct in their advertisements for their legal services. 

 
2

 Scott A. Benkie’s and Douglas A. Crawford’s admission to this state's bar in 1985 and 

1986, respectively, subjects them to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. USeeU IND. CONST. art. 7, 

§ 4. For their misconduct, we find that Respondents should receive a public reprimand. 

UBackground

The case was submitted to the hearing officer on stipulated facts and exhibits. 

Respondents practice law as partners in the firm of Benkie & Crawford and used brochures to 

solicit clients for the firm. The two brochures at issue in this proceeding are "When You Need a 

Lawyer" and "We Work for You." 

 

In "When You Need a Lawyer," which first appeared in 1996, Respondents represented 

that the firm has a "commitment to obtaining the best possible settlement for you and your 

family." In "We Work for You," which first appeared in 2001, Respondents describe several 

prior successful representations including the area of law, client names, amounts recovered, and 

other facts. "Legal Advertisement" appeared on each page of both brochures through 2004, at 

which time it was replaced with "Advertising Material." 

Respondents filed both brochures with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary 

Commission ("Commission") as required by Professional Conduct Rule 7.3(c). "When You 

Need a Lawyer" was sent to the Commission in 1996, with a letter stating it was being submitted 

for approval. The Commission responded with a letter stating that its does not render advisory 

opinions on the propriety of targeted solicitation letters. Respondents filed "We Work for You" 

with the Commission in 2001. Respondents filed revised versions of "When You Need a 

Lawyer" in 2003 and 2004. The Commission sometimes sends letters to lawyers advising them 

that the language of their submissions needs to be changed to comply with the Professional 

Conduct Rules. Respondents did not receive any such advisement. 

The Commission charged Respondents with violating these Indiana Professional Conduct 

Rules that prohibit the following conduct: 1

 

 

1

 The numbering of some of these rules, but not their substance, has been changed since the inception of 

this case. The current rule numbers are used in this opinion. 
3

7.2(b): Use of a public communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, 

deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim. 

7.2(c)(3): Use of a statement intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation. 

7.2(d)(2): Use of a public communication that contains statistical data or other 

information based on past performance or prediction of future success. 

7.3(c): Solicitation of professional employment without the words "Advertising 

Material." 

UDiscussion

"UCommitment to obtaining the best possible settlementU." Respondents argue it is no 

violation to make a commitment to clients to obtain the best possible settlement for them. We 

agree with Respondents on this point. It is improper for an attorney to say he or she can obtain

the best possible settlement for clients. See UMatter of WamsleyU, 725 N.E.2d 75, 77 (Ind. 2000). 

Such a statement promises a result and creates an unjustified expectation on the part of 

prospective clients. Respondents, by contrast, promised prospective clients only a commitment

to their cases, which clients have every right to expect. We therefore find for Respondents on 

this charge. 

UDescriptions of prior representationsU. Respondents clearly used a public communication 

that contained information based on past performance, which is prohibited by Rule 7.2(d)(2). 

Respondents assert that they used quotations from newspaper articles and cited the name of the 

paper and dates of the articles. Thus, they argue, the information was already before the public 

and was objectively verifiable. The rule, however, makes no exception for such use. Moreover, 

the selective use and editing of such articles, which may not necessarily be accurate, could be 

misleading and lead to unjustified expectations by potential clients. 

Respondents contend that a staff attorney for the Commission informally approved a 

solicitation letter submitted by a law firm that contained references to past successes and 

attached a favorable newspaper article. The propriety of that letter is not before this Court. 

Suffice it to say, however, that the fact that a staff attorney may have informally approved 
4

objectionable material in one case does not mean rule violations by other attorneys must be 

excused. 

"ULegal AdvertisementU." Respondents admit that their use of the phrase "Legal 

Advertisement" rather than "Advertising Material" was a rule violation, but they contend that it 

was merely technical and inadvertent. Although the violation was inadvertent, we do not 

consider it to be a mere technicality. Use of the phrase "Legal Advertisement" may create the 

impression that the Commission or some other body had reviewed it and found it to be "legal." 

ULack of warning or assistance from the CommissionU. The Rules of Professional Conduct 

provide: 

Every written, recorded, or electronic communication from a lawyer 

soliciting professional employment from a prospective client potentially in need 

of legal services in a particular matter, and with whom the lawyer has no family 

or prior professional relationship, shall include the words "Advertising Material" . 

. . . A copy of each such communication shall be filed with the Indiana 

Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission at or prior to its dissemination to the 

prospective client. . . . Each time any such communication is changed or altered, 

a copy of the new or modified communication shall be filed with the Disciplinary 

Commission at or prior to the time of its mailing or distribution. . . . 

Prof. Cond. R. 7.3(c) (emphasis added). 

Although this rule requires filing of advertising materials with the Commission, it does 

not require the Commission to review such materials for violations. Indeed, reviewing every 

such letter, brochure, and other communication from every Indiana lawyer would be an 

impossible burden. Nevertheless, the filing requirement serves several functions. It preserves a 

record of lawyer advertising material in case a dispute arises. Perhaps most importantly, such 

filing with the Commission encourages self-policing by lawyers. The filing requirement also 

makes it possible for the Commission staff to spot at least some advertising materials that run 

afoul of the rules and to warn those lawyers of the need to correct the violations. We do not wish 

to discourage this service to the bar and to the public, even though it cannot extend to every 

lawyer communication filed with the Commission. 
5

We conclude that Respondents' lack of warning that their advertising material appeared 

to contain rule violations did not deny them due process of law or otherwise prejudice them. 

Still, the fact that Respondents sought advice from the Commission regarding their advertising 

material mitigates the degree of their culpability. 

USanction.U Respondents have no prior history of disciplinary action. The hearing officer 

and the Commission recommend a public reprimand. We conclude this is an appropriate 

sanction under the circumstances of this case. 

UConclusion

The Court concludes that Respondents' use of the phrase "commitment to obtaining the 

best possible settlement" did not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and finds for 

Respondents on this charge. The Court, however, concludes the Commission has demonstrated 

by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents committed the remaining violations as 

charged. 

For Respondents' professional misconduct, the Court imposes a public reprimand. 

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondents. The hearing officer 

appointed in this case is discharged. 

 

The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer, to 

the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under 

Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d). 

Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, and Boehm, JJ., concur. 

Sullivan and Rucker, JJ., concur except that they would find no violation of Indiana Professional 

Conduct Rule 7.2(d)(2).