"
MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1988-44
Advertising-Solicitation: Newspaper Solicitation to Group of Potential Plaintiffs
You question whether newspaper advertising directed to wired mouth patients which advises them that they may have an action against their dentist violates the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
Communications concerning legal services is governed by Rule 7.1 which states:
A lawyer shall not make a false of misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it:
(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;
(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the rules of professional conduct or other law; or
(c) compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated.
The Committee views the ad enclosed in your letter as informational and not violative of Rule 7.1 on its face. However, all lawyer advertising is subject to the constraints of Rule 7.2 which requires, among other things that:
(d) any communication made pursuant to this Rule shall include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for its content.
Since the ad enclosed does not give the name of a lawyer who is responsible for its content it violates Rule 72.
Lastly, while this Committee does not express opinions on matters of law, the propriety of print advertisement directed toward certain members of the population appears to have been settled by the Supreme Court in Zauderer v. Office of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).
References: Rule 7.1 and 7.2
Zauderer v. Office of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).
"