Tcl - Attorney Advertising and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act - April 2007 - Whoops! Legal Malpractice Prevention

• Publication year: 2007
• Pages: 63
• Citation: Vol. 36 No. 4 Pg. 63

36 Colo.Law. 63 Colorado Lawyer 2007.

2007, April, Pg. 63. TCL - Attorney Advertising and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act - April 2007 - Whoops! Legal Malpractice Prevention

The Colorado Lawyer
April 2007
Vol. 36, No. 4 [Page 63]

Departments
Whoops! Legal Malpractice Prevention

Attorney Advertising and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act

by Jennifer C. Forsyth, Thomas B. Quinn

This department is sponsored by the Lawyers' Professional Liability Committee of the Colorado Bar Association to assist attorneys in preventing legal malpractice. The department welcomes articles and ideas or suggestions for article topics. For more information, for writing guidelines, or to submit an article or topic suggestion, contact Andrew McLetchie - (303) 298-8603 a_mcletchie@fsf-law.com; or Reba Nance - (303) 824-5320 reban@cobar.org.

Jennifer C. Forsyth is Of Counsel at the Denver law firm of White and Steele, P.C. - (303) 296-2828 jforsyth@wsteele.com. Thomas B. Quinn is a shareholder with White and Steele, P.C. - (303) 296-2828, tquinn@wsteele.com.

In 2006, Colorado courts issued two decisions of interest to attorneys who advertise. In a question of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded in Crowe v. Tull(fn1) that attorneys may be held liable for violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA).(fn2) The other major decision of 2006, issued by the Colorado Court of Appeals in Park Rise Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Resource Construction Company,(fn3) clarified that claims that are merely expressions of opinion or "puffing" are not actionable under the CCPA.(fn4) These two decisions provide guidance about the types of representations that are actionable under the CCPA.

The Crowe Case

The Colorado Supreme Court held in Crowe that the CCPA applies to attorney advertising.(fn5) The Court exercised its jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 to determine whether a client may sue his or her attorney for violating the CCPA, after the trial court dismissed plaintiff Richard Crowe's CCPA claim and granted a protective order relating to discovery of the defendant law firm's marketing and advertising practices.(fn6)

Crowe claimed that he retained a law firm to represent him in a personal injury case based on representations made in its advertisements that the firm would obtain full value for personal injury claims. After settling his case, Crowe filed suit against his attorney and the firm...