Cba Ethics Opinion No. 76
| Publication year | 1987 |
| Pages | 2205 |
| Citation | Vol. 15 No. 9 Pg. 2205 |
1987, December, Pg. 2205. CBA Ethics Opinion No. 76
An example of the kind of fact situation giving rise to this Opinion can be summarized as follows:
A law firm consisting of two lawyers published advertisements in local newspapers which referred to the firm's skill in preparation of clients' personal injury cases "for trial," to its medical knowledge that would "make complicated medical facts clear for the jury," and to its licensed investigators who discovered facts "essential for victory in the courtroom." From the time the firm was formed until the advertisements appeared, no lawyer at the firm had tried a personal injury case to a conclusion. One lawyer had never tried such a case at all, while the experience of the other in that area consisted of from three or four trials more than ten years before. The firm settled 95 percent of its clients' claims without filing a complaint and referred virtually all actions it did commence to other lawyers for trial.
These facts are largely identical to those in the case of Matter of Zang, 741 P.2d 267 (Ariz. 1987). This ethics opinion is not limited to those facts, however.
Lawyer advertising engenders responsibilities to the public as well as professional opportunities. Lawyers who advertise must have or develop the competency to handle the representations for which they advertise. Lawyers should not claim to be "experienced" in matters which typically involve litigation in the absence of substantial trial experience. A lawyer may associate with another lawyer to handle a representation obtained through advertising, but must disclose to the public such associations if there is a likelihood the lawyer will associate with more experienced lawyers at the time the advertisement is placed. Referral or forwarding fees are forbidden. Clients obtained through advertising must be given the same attention and zealous advocacy required for any other client. Lawyers cannot hold themselves out as certified specialists except to the extent permitted by the Colorado Supreme Court, although they may advertise their areas of preference.
Lawyer advertising was first given constitutional protection by the United States Supreme Court in Bates v....
To continue reading
Request your trial