Court Opinion

ID: 9743078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:25:16.008681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.196823
License: Public Domain

SIMONETT, Justice
(concurring specialty)-
While I join in the court’s opinion, I wish to comment further on the finding of improper advertising of legal services. Respondent’s newspaper advertisement reads in part:
SURVIVE
DIVORCE
FINANCIALLY
RECEIVE
$600/Mo. Financial support if you’re raising two children, $500 if you’re supporting one.
RECEIVE
Financial support that is not dependent on your spouse.
RECEIVE
xk hour free consultation * * *
Mr. Kotts sees nothing wrong with this. He says his advertisement states a fact, namely, that women with children are eligible to receive financial assistance from government agencies; and, further, he says that the advertisement makes no guarantees and does not identify him as the source of the financial support.
The referee found this advertising to violate DR 2-101(A), Minnesota Code of Professional Responsibility. What troubles me is not so much the violation, which is clear enough, as Mr. Kotts’ apparent belief *407that his advertisement is not only accurate but professionally appropriate.
So long as lawyer advertising is not false, fraudulent, misleading or deceiving, it passes constitutional muster and the disciplinary code, but one hopes for more. One would hope that Mr. Kotts, even if he had said in his ad what he says he wanted to say (which would have been perfectly appropriate), would have done so without reverting to hucksterism. Simply because free speech allows us to make fools of ourselves is no reason we should avail ourselves of the opportunity. For then, sadly, it is the whole profession that suffers.