Opinion ID: 2242145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prof.Cond.R. 7.1(d)(4): Improper Representation or Implication Regarding the Quality of Legal Services.

Text: Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 7.1(d) provides: A lawyer shall not, on behalf of himself, his partner or associate, or any other lawyer affiliated with him or his firm, use or participate in the use of any form of public communication which:    (4) contains a statement or opinion as to the quality of the services or contains a representation or implication regarding the quality of legal services; ... The evidence presented clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondents' advertisements contain a representation or implication regarding the quality of their legal services. Though the respondents' advertisements contain a brief printed disclaimer, No specific result implied, the advertisements imply that clients represented by the respondents' law firm will achieve favorable results based solely upon the respondents' reputation with insurance companies. The respondents' advertisements create an impression that the claims they handle are settled, not because of the specific facts or legal circumstances of the claims, but merely by the mention of the name of the respondents' firm to insurance companies. This Court has found that similar advertisements violated Prof.Cond.R. 7.1(d)(4). In Matter of Anonymous, 689 N.E.2d 442 (Ind.1997), where the attorney's advertisement claimed his law firm was a premier personal injury law firm with 30 years trial experience and a support network to rival that of a larger city firm and the track record and resources you need to win a settlement, we noted the danger underlying broad unsupported claims: A person unfamiliar with personal injury litigation might understand the advertisement to promise that any claim or case handled by the respondents would result in a favorable settlement. Anonymous at 443. Here, the respondents' advertisements suggest the very sort of improper implication of which we cautioned in Anonymous. Similarly, in Matter of Wamsley, 725 N.E.2d 75 (Ind.2000) we found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 7.1(d)(4) where an attorney's printed advertisement stated, ... my reputation, experience and integrity... result in most of our cases being settled... Like the advertisements in Anonymous and Wamsley, the respondents' advertisements suggest insurance companies will be inclined to settle claims handled by their firm. [2] The intent and purpose behind our Rules of Professional Conduct is to create a high standard for communicating with the public about legal services. The Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct provides: The legal profession's relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Indiana Rules of Court, West Publishing (2003), p. 336. The United States Supreme Court recognized this same concept when it stated: [B]ecause the public lacks sophistication concerning legal services, misstatements that might be overlooked or deemed unimportant in other advertising may be found quite inappropriate in legal advertising. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2709, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977). Accordingly, we find respondents' advertisements violate Prof.Cond.R. 7.1(d)(4). [3]