GA Code § 10-1-427 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 10 - Commerce and Trade|Chapter 1 - Selling and Other Trade Practices|Article 15 - Deceptive or Unfair Practices|Part 4 - False Advertising|§ 10-1-427. False Advertising of Legal Services; Good Faith Exemptions; Complaints; Violation of Cease and Desist Order

  No person, firm, corporation, or association or any employee thereof, with intent directly or indirectly to perform legal services or to do anything of any nature whatsoever to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, shall make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, in any newspaper or other publication, radio, television, or advertising device or by public outcry or proclamation or any other manner or means whatever, any statement concerning such legal services or concerning any circumstances or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance thereof which is untrue, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading and which is known or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known to be untrue, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading.   Nothing in this Code section shall apply to any visual or sound broadcasting station or to any publisher or printer of a newspaper, magazine, or other form of printed advertising who broadcasts, telecasts, publishes, or prints such advertisement in good faith without knowledge of its false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading character.   The Attorney General is authorized and empowered, upon the receipt of a complaint or upon his or her own initiative, to investigate any advertising which might be in violation of subsection (a) of this Code section. If the Attorney General determines that any advertising is in violation of subsection (a) of this Code section, he or she is authorized and empowered, after providing the offender with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, to issue a public reprimand, to issue a cease and desist order against the offender, to report any such action to any board, agency, commission, association, or other entity governing or supervising the legal profession, and to publicize any such action in a medium or media likely to reach the recipients of the improper advertising. Any person against whom the Attorney General issues an adverse decision may, as his or her sole remedy in equity or at law, seek a restraining order against such adverse decision in the superior court.   Any person who violates a cease and desist order issued pursuant to subsection (c) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in the county in which such person resides. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit any board, agency, commission, association, or other entity governing or supervising the legal profession from taking any lawful action against such person as a result of such improper practices. Each publication of an advertisement in violation of any such cease and desist order shall constitute a separate offense.     (Code 1981, §10-1-427, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 1556, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 4/SB 148.)    The 2015 amendment,  effective July 1, 2015, in subsection (c), in the first sentence, substituted "Attorney General" for "Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs" and substituted "upon his or her" for "upon its", in the second sentence, substituted "Attorney General" for "office" and substituted "he or she is" for "it is", and, in the last sentence, substituted "Attorney General" for "office" and inserted "or her".   Cross references.   - Misrepresentation of notary services as deceptive trade practice, § 45-17-8.2.   Advertising by attorneys, Ga. State Bar Rules, Rule 4-102:7.2.   Law reviews.   - For annual survey on legal ethics, see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 281 (1992). For note on 1992 enactment of this Code section, see 9 G. St. U.L. Rev. 159 (1992).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Anti-SLAPP suit involving lawyer placed ad challenging nursing home standards.    - In a suit involving ads placed by a lawyer challenging nursing home standards, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court overlooked certain preliminary questions as the court did not properly apply the required two step analysis under the anti-SLAPP statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1, with respect to the plaintiffs' claims as there was no discussion or analysis of whether the plaintiffs had stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim for the violations of the statutes. Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. v. LTC Consulting, L.P., 306 Ga. 252, 830 S.E.2d 119 (2019).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Propriety of radio and television attorney advertisements, 20 A.L.R.6th 385.