Court Opinion

ID: 9677775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:59:30.360437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:58.296328
License: Public Domain

BEILFUSS, C. J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority that the record does not establish that the questioned ads of Marcus and Tepper were false, misleading or deceptive, which were the standards adopted by this *581court after the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), and in effect at the time the ads were published. The rule as it now exists contains the additional prohibition of unfairness1 which, of course, is not tested in this proceeding.
These ads are understandably offensive to many respected and ethical members of the bar, and in all probability would have been considered unethical prior to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra, and In the Matter of R.M.J., 455 U.S. -, 102 S. Ct. 929, 71 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1982).
I believe these ads were degrading and lack the sense of professionalism we should expect of lawyers. However, those characterizations are not sufficient to prohibit them.

 SCR 20.08(7).