1/11/2017

AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

class="singlesinglepostpostid216singleformatstandardwpfplugindefaulttitleadvertisingbylawyerscategoryprofessionalethicsauthor
contributedpapersbrowserchrome">

AdvertisingbyLawyers
byContributedPapers|October13,20106:49pm
Like Bethefirstofyourfriendstolikethis.

AdvertisingforLawyersProfessionalEthics[1]
Tableofcases

Advocates,Allahabad,inthematterof
,AIR1934All1067.
BarCouncilofMaharashtrav.M.V.Dhabolkar
,AIR1976SC242.
Batesv.StateBarofArizona
,433U.S.350.
CDSekkizharv.SecretaryBarCouncil
,AIR1967Mad35.
FloridaBarv.WentForIt
,515U.S.618(1995).
GovernmentPleaderv.S.APleader
,A.I.R.1929Bombay335
GulfOilCov.Bernard
,452U.S.89(1981).
InreBigRiversElectricCorp.
,2002U.S.Dist.LEXIS16174(W.D.Ky.2002).
InreHelenaCorp.
,63F.3d877(9thCir1995)
InRePrimus
,436U.S.412(1978).
J.N.Guptav.D.C.Singhania&J.K.Gupta
,B.C.I.TR.CaseNo.38/1994.
K,aPleader,AIR1936Pesh114.
Kleinerv.FirstNationalBankofAtlanta
,751F.2d1193(11thCir.1985).
Michelv.Fed.Dept.StoresInc.,
44F.3d1310,1319(6thCir.1995)
PhoolDinandothers
,AIR.1952All491.
Shaperov.KentuckyBarAssociation
,486U.S.466.
VikasDeshpandev.MaharashtraStateBarCouncil
,(2003)1SCC384.
Zaudererv.OfficeofDisciplinaryCounsel,471U.S.626(1985).

Introduction
TheadvocateisnotabovethelawandisalsocontrolledbythecodeofethicsformulatedbytheBarCouncilofIndia/StateBarCouncils.TheBar
CouncilofIndiaunderSection36oftheAdvocatesActhasthepowerstoinitiatedisciplinaryproceedingsagainstanadvocateonreceiptofa
complaintorotherwise,ifithasreasontobelievethatanyadvocateonitsrollhasbeenguiltyofprofessionalorothermisconduct.
ThewordmisconducthasnotbeenspecificallydefinedundertheAdvocatesAct.Howeverdisciplinaryproceedingscanbeinitiatedagainstanadvocate
forprofessionalorothermisconductofthefollowingtypes:
1)Professionalandothermisconduct:i.e.anyconductwhichinanywayrendersamanunfitfortheexerciseofhisprofession,orislikelytotamperor
embarasstheadministrationofjusticebyanyCourt,suchasputtingindecentquestionstothevictiminatrialforrape.
2)Dutytowardsclient:i.e.whereanadvocatefailsindischarginghisdutytowardshisclient,foreg.acceptingabriefincriminalcaseandnot
attendingtrialfromdaytoday.[1]3)Misconductinrelationtofees:suchasagreementbetweenanadvocateandclientthathewillreceivehisfees
onlyasasharefromthesubjectmatterofthecase,evenwhentheadvocatedemandsfeestobepaidinsuchmanneronlyifthecaseiswon,asthis
wouldamounttospeculatingonlitigation.
4)Misappropriationofclientsmoney:suchassaleofclientssharesinpersonalcapacityandappropriatingtheproceedstowardsfees,retaining
clientsmoneyandnotreturningitforalongtime,treatingsuchmoneyasloan,etc.
5)Changingsides:i.e.whereanadvocateisretainedexclusivelybyaclientandheacceptsabriefagainstsuchclient.
6)Negligence:suchasgivingimproperlegaladviceaccompaniedbymoraldelinquenceandifsuchadviceisgivewithawillfulandcallousdisregard
fortheclientsinterests.
7)ContemptofCourt:suchas,scandalisingtheCourt,creatingdisturbanceintheworkoftheCourt,makingallegationsuponfairnessorimpartiality
ofthejudge.
8)Criminaloffences:ie.wheresuchconvictionshowssuchadvocatetobeunfittobeapleader.
9)Falsestatement:suchasfilingafalseaffidavit,ie,adocumentcontainingcertainstatementswhicharesworntobeforetheCourtasbeingtrue.
10)Othercasesofmisconduct:suchassnatchingofbriefs,communalremarks,perjury,advertisingoneselfdirectlyorindirectly,etc.
UnderSection35oftheAct,theStateBarCouncilisempoweredtoinitiateproceedingsagainstanadvocateformisconduct,eitheronacomplaintor
onitsown.TheBarCouncilofIndiaunderSection36canlikewiseinitiatesuchproceedingandalsohasthepowertowithdrawsuchproceedings
pendingbeforeanyStateBarCouncilandinquireintosuchcasesonitsown.IfmisconductisprovedinsuchcasebeforetheBarCouncilsuchaction
maybetaken,suchassuspensionofpracticeforaperiod,oringravecasesstrikingthenameofsuchadvocatesoftheroll.Insuchcasestheadvocate
canpreferanappealtotheBarCouncilofIndia,andfurthertotheSupremeCourt.ItisnoteworthythattheActdoesnotprovideforwithdrawalof
complaint.Acomplaintoncefiledcannotbewithdrawnandtheprocessofinquiryoncesetinmotioncannotbestopped.
Rule36oftheBarCouncilofIndiarulesprovidesthatanadvocateshallnotsolicitworkoradvertise,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,whetherbycirculars,
advertisements,touts,personalcommunications,interviewsnotwarrantedbypersonalrelations,furnishingorinspiringnewspapercommentsor
producinghisphotographstobepublishedinconnectionwithcasesinwhichhehasbeenengagedorconcerned.Hissignboardornameplateshould
beofareasonablesize.ThesignboardornameplateorstationeryshouldnotindicatethatheisorhasbeenPresidentorMemberofaBarCouncilor
ofanyAssociationorthathehasbeenassociatedwithanypersonororganisationorwithanyparticularcauseormatterorthathespecialisesinany
particulartypeofworkerorthathehasbeenaJudgeoranAdvocateGeneral.

ResearchMethodology

Chapterisation

Thispaperisbroadlydividedintofourmajorsections.Thefirstconsistsoftheintroductionandtheresearchmethodologywhichdelineatethescope 1/8
http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!
Chapterisation

1/11/2017

Thispaperisbroadlydividedintofourmajorsections.Thefirstconsistsoftheintroductionandtheresearchmethodologywhichdelineatethescope
andgoalsofthisproject.TheResearchMethodologyalsoprovidesasetofresearchquestionswhichservetoshowtheareasonwhichtheresearcher
hasconcentrated.
ThenextpartofthepaperhasattemptedtoexaminethepositioninIndiawithregardtosolicitation.Thischapteriswritteninthecontextofdecided
cases.Inthethirdandthefourthpartofthepaper,theresearcherhassoughttocoverthepositionasitexistsintheUnitedStatesandtheUnited
KingdomanddrawacomparisonwithIndia.Theconclusionhasservedasabackgroundinwhichtocontrastthetwodifferingviewpointsregarding
solicitationofworkbyadvocates.

StyleandCitation
Theresearcherhasattemptedtowritetheprojectinanalyticalstylewhichattemptstoexaminesomeoftheleadingcasesonthepointandarriveatan
understandingofwhythedecisionwasgiven.Nevertheless,ithasbeennecessaryincertainplacestolaydownthehistoricalcontextinwhichevents
tookplace.Tothatextenttherefore,thestylehasbeendescriptiveornarrative,althoughthishasbeenkeptdowntoabareminimum.Incertaincases,
itmayhavebeennecessarytoadverttodecisionsfromotherjurisdictionsinsuchcases,therehasbeensomelevelofcomparisonwhichhasbeen
madenecessary.
Auniformmethodofcitationhasbeenfollowedandabibliographyandtablesofcasesandcontentshavebeenprovidedforeasyreferencing.
Sources
Ananalysissuchastheoneintheinstantcaseisheavilydependentoncasesandjudicialdecisionsandtothisextentthispaperisbasedonprimary
sourcesintheformofcases.
ResearchQuestions
Canlawbetreatedasacommercialactivity?
Aretheresomeuniquefeaturesaboutthelegalprofessionthatmandatethatevenifadvertisingwerepermitted,itshouldbecircumscribedin
waysthatadvertisementsforotherproductsandservicesarenot?
Shouldadistinctionbemadebetweenlitigationandtransactionalwork.
Whatkindofregulationsshouldtherebe?
Giventhevastpotentialforabuseandthethousandsoflawyersinthecountry,howeasywoulditbefortheconcernedbodiestoenforcesuch
regulations.

SolicitationIndianPosition
Thesubstantiveevilsofsolicitationhavebeenstatedovertheyearsinsweepingtermsstirringuplitigation,assertionoffraudulentclaims,debasing
thelegalprofession,andpotentialharmtothesolicitedclientintheformofoverreaching,overcharging,underrepresentation,andmisrepresentation.
Solicitationistoendeavortoobtainbyaskingorpleading.Itisastrongerandmoreconcertedefforttogetaclientascomparedtoadvertisingandis
deliveredthroughdirectinpersoncommunication.Apartfromadvertisingsolicitationmayinvolveamongstothersthingsadvertising,toutism,brief
begging,briefsnatching,ambulancechasing.TheinterestoftheStatesinregulatinglawyersisespeciallygreatsincelawyersareessentialtothe
primarygovernmentalfunctionofadministeringjustice,andhavehistoricallybeenofficersofthecourts.
Therecanbemanywayswhichalawyerintendingtoadvertisehimself,mayadoptandyettrytoconcealthefactthatheissoadvertising.Theissuing
ofcircularlettersorelectionmanifestoesbyanadvocatewithhisname,professionandaddressprintedthereonappealingtothemembersofhis
professionpracticinginthelowercourt,whoareinapositiontorecommendclientstoCounselpracticingintheHighCourt,isobviouslyanindirect
meansofadvertisement.
JusticeKrishnaIyerinhischaracteristicstylespeakingabouttheprofessionoflawsaidthecannonsofethicsandproprietyforthelegalprofession
totallytabooconductbywayofsoliciting,advertising,scramblingandotherobnoxiouspractices.Lawisinnowaytrade,briefsormerchandise.
CanvassingforprofessionalworkinanymannerisprohibitedbyRule34oftheBarCouncilofIndiaRules.Evenasignplateoranameboardshouldbe
ofamoderatesize.[2]
Toutism
Animportantaspectofsolicitationistoutism.Toutsarepersonswhoprocurebusinessinconsiderationofcommissionmovingfromlegalpractitioner.
[3]Inotherprofessionsitmaybemorallywrongtopayapercentageofbenefitorpaymentotherwisetosuchtoutsbutinthelegalprofessionthisis
totallyprohibited.[4]ItisthetraditionoftheBarthatthelawyershouldnotseekbusiness.Thelawyermustnotapplytootherstoweighhiscapacityto
attractclients.Hemustwaituntilhismeritsarediscoveredandappreciated.Howeverafewlawyersindulgeinactivitiessuchasbriefbeggingand
briefsnatchingduetohighcompetitionandovercrowdingintheBar.
Toutsarereferredtosuchcategoryofpersonnelasareusedbyadvocatestogetbusinessonpaymentisashareoffeesreceivedbythemfromthe
clients.Thetoutsreceivecompensationonlyfromthelawyers.Suchtoutsworkonthestrengthofconfidenceheisabletoinfuseintoaprospective
litigant,whoviewshimasahelpimbibedwiththesolemotiveofarrangingtherightcounselforthelitigant.Thewordtoutwasdefinedinsection2
oftheLegalPractitioners(Amendment)Act.[5]
Advertising
InIndiavariousformsofindirectadvertisementbylawyershavebeengoingnoforseveralyearsincontraventionoftheBarCouncilRules.These
includevisitingcards,directorylistingsandseminarandfelicitationceremonies.AllofwhichwouldattractRule36.Anotherindirectwayemployedby
lawyersistheissuingofcircularlettersorelectionmanifestoesbyanadvocatewithhisnameaddressandprofessionprintedonitappealingtothe
membersofthebar,practicinginlowercourtswhoareinapositiontorecommendclientsfortheHighCourtlevel.Itisonlyintherecenttimesthat
therehasbeensomedemandtochangethelaw,promptedlargelybycommerciallawyers/lawfirmswhoarenow,intheglobalizescenariofeelingthe
threatofcompetitionfromforeignlawyerstowhomsuchaprohibitiondoesnotapplyandwhohavebeenadvertisingoverthenet.
TheprohibitionhasitsoriginsinEnglishlawwhichhasbeenpermittingadvertisementbylawyerssubjecttoregulationfromthe1980s.Therationale
behindthebanisexplainedinaMadrasHighCourtjudgmentof1967.[6]Thecourtheldthatadvertisinginanyformbyamemberoftheprofessionof
lawisandhasbeenconsideredhasbeenforagesconsideredasareprehensibleconduct.Thisisasoughttobebecauseofthestandardwhichthe
gentlemenoftheprofessionhavejealouslydevelopedandsetupforthemselvesasbefittingthehonour,dignityandhighpositionofthenoble
profession.
TheotherrationalewasthatinacountrylikeIndiawithitslargeilliteratepopulationthereisapossibilityofunscrupulouslawyersexploitingthe
public.Lawistraditionallyseenasaprofessionwhosegoalispublicservice.
Thesolicitationofbusinessbyalawyerthroughdirectinpersoncommunicationwiththeprospectiveclienthaslongbeenviewedasinconsistentwith2/8
http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

1/11/2017

AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

Thesolicitationofbusinessbyalawyerthroughdirectinpersoncommunicationwiththeprospectiveclienthaslongbeenviewedasinconsistentwith
theprofessionsidealoftheattorneyclientrelationshipandasposingasignificantpotentialforharmtotheprospectiveclient.

GovernmentPleaderv.S.APleader

Itwasheldin
[7]thatapleadersendingacircularpostcardmerelygivingtheaddressandthenameand
descriptionofhimselfwouldamounttoanadvertisementonhispartandthereforetoimproperconductandifinadditionhefalselystatedthathehad
beenauthorizedtoexaminetheaccountsofwaqfpropertiesandtoissuecertificatesbytheDistrictCourtratheraggravatesthecasethanthereverse.
Evenifauditingisnotstrictlylegalwork,yetthisveryfactofadvertisinghisreadinesstotakeupthatworkcombinedwithhismisleadingisstatement
thatheisaHighcourtPleaderandseeingthatthisworkisconnectedwiththecourtsandhastobesupervisedbythecourtswouldresultinhisgetting
animproperadvantageinlegalworkoverhisfellowpleader,whodidnotdescendtosuchdevices.ItwasimproperconductonthepartoftheDistrict
pleadertoissuesuchpostcardsandtocanvassforthisparticularworkinthewaythathedid,andaccordinglyhehascommittedanoffenceunderS.
26.

K.aPleader.,

Inthematterof
[8]K,apracticingpleaderheldoutapromisetoapartyinacivilsuitthatifhewouldbeappointedanarbitrator,he
wouldnotgiveanawardunacceptabletohim.Inspiteofthepromise,Kmadearecommendationthatalargesumofmoneywhichwasindispute,
shouldbehandedovertotheoppositeparty,thussettlingoneportionofdisputebeforecomingtoanyfinaldecisionastothemeritsofthedispute
betweenthepartiesandtherebycausedgraveprejudicetothepartywhoseinterestshehadpromisedtoprotect.ThecourtheldthatKhadactedwith
grossdishonestyunderthecloakofhispositionasalegalpractitionerandwasliabletobedismissedunderS.13(f),LegalPractitionersAct.

PhoolDinandothers

Inthematterof
[9]itwasheldthatapersonisnotatoutifhegivesgratuitousadvicetolitiganttoengageaparticularlawyer,or
gratuitouslyprocurestheemploymentofalawyer.Itisonlywhenhechargesremunerationfromalawyerforthispurposethathefallsinthedefinition
oftout.TheLegalPractitionersActprohibitsalawyerfromacceptinganemploymentthoughatoutandacitizenfromengaginghimselfinthesocalled
professionoftourism.Itispenalforalawyertoacceptanemploymentthroughatoutandforacitizentoactasatout.
TheCourtfurtherheldthatArticle19(1)(g)ConstitutionofIndia,doesnotgiveanunfetteredrighttopracticeanyprofessionwhichacitizenmay
choosetoadoptirrespectiveofthefactthatengagementinsuchaprofessionisprohibitedbylaw.ItissubjecttotheprovisionsofCI.(6)ofArt.129
whichprovidesforimpositionintheinterestsofthegeneralpublicreasonablerestrictionsonthatright.

TheBarCouncilOfMaharashtraV.M.V.DabholkarandOthers

In
[10]thecourtheldthatRule36,fairlyconstrued,setsoutwholesomerulesof
professionalconductalthoughthecannonsethicsexistedevenpriortoRule36.AlsoRule36isnottheonlynidusofprofessionalethics.Professional
ethicswerebornwiththeorganizedBarevenasmoralnormsarosewithcivilizedsociety.

J.N.GuptaV.D.C.Singhania&J.K.Gupta

In
[11]therespondentadvocateshadissuedhadissuedtwoadvertisementsinanewspaperforthefirsttime
indicatingtheirchangeofaddresstoanotherplaceanaccountoffireinthebuildingandforthesecondtimeforshiftingbacktothebuildingwhichwas
theiroldoffice.ThereaftertheRespondentmadeapublicationintheInternationalBarDirectorygivingthenamesandaddressesoftheirofficersunder
theheadingSinghania&CompanyFirmsmajorcases,andRepresentativeclients.
TheCourtheldthatitdidnotfindanyirregularity,muchlessanyprofessionalmisconductinmakingsuchpublicationinanewspaper,whichwason
accountofextraordinarysituationoffireinofficewhich,requiredurgentintimationtotheirclients.Thepaperpublicationpersedoesnotconstitute
anyviolationoftheBarCouncilofIndiaRulesonprofessionalconduct.AsregardspublicationinInternationalBarDirectory,thecourtheldthat
publicationinanymannereitherinNationalorInternationalBarDirectorydonewiththepurposeofgivinginformationofaddressesandtelephone
numbersofAdvocatesispermissibleundertheBarCouncilRules,however,howeverherethelonepurposeofthepublicationswastogivepublicityto
thefactthatSinghania&Co.Havedealtwithcasesofimportanceandtheyhaveclientsofeminencewithaviewtosolicitmorebriefsandattractmore
clients.ThecourtheldthatthepublicationsmadeintheInternationalBarDirectoryundertheheadingSinghania&Company,FirmssMajorCases
AndRepresentatieClientsareoffendingofRule36oftheBarCouncilofIndiaRulesofStandardsofProfessionalConductandEtiquetteprohibiting
advertisementinanymannerofapersoninthelegalprofession.Respondentswerereprimandedu/s35(3)(B)oftheAdvocatesAct,andRs,3,000/
wereimposedascosts.

VikasDeshpandev.MaharashtraStateBarCouncil

Inaveryrecentcase
[12]theSCheldthatAppellantadvocatesolicitingbrieffromcomplainant
deathconvictsbysayingthathewouldnotchargeanyfeesfromthemandobtainingtheirsignaturesandthumbimpressionsoncertaindocumentsby
misrepresentationonthebasisofwhichpowerofattorneyexecutedinhisfavourandinpursuancethereofsellingtheirlandfraudulentlyand
misappropriatingthesaleproceedsongroundthatitwassettledwiththecomplainantsthattheywouldpayhisfeesofRs50,000forconductingtheir
caseamountedtograveprofessionalmisconduct.TheCourtheldthatthePunishmentofremovalofappellantsnamefromrollofStateBarCouncil
underS.35(3)(d)andimpositionofcostsofRs25,000payabletoheirsofthecomplainants(sincedeceasedinexecutionofdeathsentence)justified.
Thecourthighlightedtheneedtotakeremedialstepstonipinthebudsuchkindofmisconduct.

TheAmericanPosition
Theargumentinfavourofsolicitationisthatpersonalsolicitationisvaluablebecauseitmayappriseavictimofmisfortuneofhislegalrights.Through
thelastquartercentury,therehasbeenamoveawayfromabanonlegaladvertisingthisisconsistentwiththeidealthatprofessionalismisa
rejectionofthecommercialspirits.Thetrendisnowtowardamorebalancedapproachthatconsidersboththeneedtoeducatethepublicandthe
valueoftrustinthelegalsystem.IntheUSthisbalancehasmaterializedinthecaselawthroughtwocompetingideas:preventingtheerosionof
confidenceintheprofessionthatsuchrepeatedinvasions[byadvertising]haveengendered,andpreventingthesuppressionofinformationand
knowledgethattranscendsthefinancialselfinterestsofthespeaker.Thesecompetingideasframetheissueoftargetedadvertisinginthelawtoday.

Batesv.StateBarof

AdvertisinginthelegalprofessionbecameaconstitutionallyprotectedrightfollowingtheSupremeCourtsdecisionin
.Inthatcase,twoattorneysopenedalawofficedesignedtoofferlegalservicestopeoplewhodidnotqualifyforlegalaidbutcouldnot
otherwiseaffordlegalcounsel.Theattorneysdeterminedthattheonlywaytheirofficecouldbeviablewastoadvertise.Theadvertisement,bythe
attorneysownadmission,constitutedaclearviolationofDisciplinaryRule2101(B),incorporatedinRule29(a)oftheSupremeCourtofArizona,17A
Ariz.Rev.Stat.,p.26(Supp.1976).ButtheCourtheldthatblanketprohibitionofadvertisinginthelegalprofessionwasunconstitutionalasa
violationoftheFirstAmendment.Thiscaseestablishedarightforattorneystoadvertise,butitdidnotdiscussiforhowthisrightcouldberestricted.

Arizona[13]

Zaudererv.OfficeofDisciplinaryCounsel[14]

In
,theissueoftargetedadvertising,includingtheconstitutionalityoftargetedadvertising,was
addressed.[15]TheattorneyplaintiffinthiscasesubmittedanadvertisementforpublicationinanOhionewspaperthatstatedhiswillingnessto
representwomenwhohadbeeninjuredfromusingaspecificcontraceptivedevicetheadvertisementincludedadrawing.Itwasarguedthatthistype
oftargetedadvertisementshouldbetreatedthesameasaninpersonsolicitation:completeprohibition.However,theSupremeCourtheldthatthe
overreachingnatureandthepotentialforinvasionofprivacyfoundininpersonsolicitationwasnotpresentwhenattorneysusetargetedadvertising.
Specifically,itheldthatcommercialspeechthatisnotfalseordeceptiveanddoesnotconcernunlawfulactivitiesmayberestrictedonlyinthe
serviceofasubstantialgovernmentalinterest,andonlythroughmeansthatdirectlyadvancethatinterest.Zaudererestablishedthatthedistinction
betweeninpersonsolicitationandtargetedadvertisingorsolicitationisinthelawyersabilitytocoercethroughthespecificsolicitationandthe
invasionofprivacyonthepotentialclient.TheCourtfoundthisdistinctionsignificantenoughtopreventacompletebanontargetedadvertisingand
solicitation.

GulfOilCov.Bernard[16]

In
,theplaintiffsbroughtaclassactionchargingdefendantwithemploymentdiscriminationbasedonrace.Thetrialjudge,
relyingonRule23(d)Fed.R.Civ.P.,granteddefendantsmotionforanorderrestrainingallcommunicationsconcerningtheclassactionbetween
partiesortheircounselandanyactualorpotentialclassmemberwhowasnotaformalparty,withoutthepriorapprovalofthecourt.
TheSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourthadabuseditsdiscretioninrestrainingthecommunications.Itacknowledgedthatsuchcommunications 3/8
http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

1/11/2017

AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

TheSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourthadabuseditsdiscretioninrestrainingthecommunications.Itacknowledgedthatsuchcommunications
createdapotentialforabuse,whichprovidesatrialjudgewithboththedutyandthebroadauthoritytoexercisecontroloveraclassactingandto
enterappropriateordersgoverningtheconductofcounselandparties.Ontheotherhand,ordersrestrainingcommunicationswithclassmembersmay
asinthecurrentcase,makeitdifficultforcounselandtheclassrepresentativeseffectivelytorepresenttheclass.

Kleinerv.FirstNationalBankofAtlanta[17]
Oil

In
,aclassactionagainstabankforinterestovercharges.Thetrialjudgeinstructeddefensecounselnot
tocontactplaintiffclassmembersduringaperiodoftimewithinwhichthemembershadtodecidewhethertooptoutoftheclass.Afterreading
anddespitethecourtorder,thebankscounselconductedthatthebankcouldsolicitoptoutssolongasitdidsotruthfullyandwithoutcoercion
(manyofthepotentialclassmemberswerebankcustomersanddependentonthebankforloans).Thebankbeganatelephonecampaign.Itslawyer
helped.Thecampaignidentified2,800borrowers,withnearly$700millioninloans,whoagreedtooptout,althoughsomemayhaveintendedtodoso
inanyevent.

Gulf

Whenthedistrictjudgelearnedofthecampaign,sheimposedfinesandcoststotalingmorethan$100,000againstcounselandthebank,disqualified
counselfromcontinuingtorepresentthebank,andruledthatthecustomerswhohadchosentooptoutwouldbepermittedtorejointheclassafter
entryofjudgement(i.e.Afterseeingwhowon).

Shaperov.KentuckyBarAssociation[18]developedthelawonthisissue.InShapero,anattorneyappliedtothestatesAttorneyAdvertising

Commissionforapprovalofaletterhecreatedforatargetedmailingadvertisement.TheCommissiondeniedapprovalforthelettertobemailed
becausetheletterwasprecipitatedbyaspecificevent,whichviolatedaKentuckySupremeCourtRule.TheSupremeCourtdeterminedthelower
courtwasaskingthewrongquestionwhenitmadetheobservationthat:suchsolicitationsubjectstheprospectiveclienttopressurefromatrained
lawyerinadirectpersonalway.Itisentirelypossiblethatthepotentialclientmayfeeloverwhelmedbythebasicsituationwhichcausedtheneedfor
thespecificlegalservicesandmayhaveseriouslyimpairedcapacityforgoodjudgment,soundreasonandanaturalprotectiveselfinterest.Sucha
conditionisfullofthepossibilityofundueinfluence,overreachingandintimidation.
Therelevantquestion,astheCourtidentifiedit,waswhetherthemodeofcommunicationposesaseriousdangerthatlawyerswillexploitanysuch
susceptibility.Here,theCourtstatedthattargetedmailcommunicationdidnot.Itheldthatdirectmailsolicitation,includingtheletteratissue,is
comparabletoprintadvertisinganddoesnotposethetypeofriskthatinpersonsolicitationdoes.TheCourtprofferedanumberofreasonswhythis
targetedmailingshouldnotbebanned.First,aletter,likeaprintedadvertisement(butunlikealawyer),canreadilybeputinadrawertobe
consideredlater,ignored,ordiscarded.Second,amassmailingandatargetedmailingbothinvadearecipientsprivacyequally,andamassmailing
cannotbebannedafteraspecificincident,thusmakingitnomoredangerousthanotheradvertisingthatisalreadyallowed.Third,therearefarless
restrictiveandmoreprecisemeansofregulationthatthestatecanimpose.Thislastreasonastowhydirectmailingsolicitationprecipitatedbya
specificeventcannotbebannedhascreatedasignificantlegalgrayareaagrayareathatwasnarrowedafewyearslaterbytheSupremeCourt.

Shapero

TheABArespondedto
byrewritingRule7.3topermittargeteddirectmailtopotentialclients,buttorequirethatwherethecommunicationis
aimedatapersonknowntobeinneedoflegalservicesinaparticularlegalmatterthewordsAdvertisingMaterialappearontheoutsideenvelope
andatthebeginningandendingofanyrecordedcommunication,unlesstherecipientisamemberofthelawyersfamilyorsomeonewithwhomthe
lawyerhasapriorprofessionalrelationship.
TheSupremeCourthasnotexplicitlyextendedFirstAmendmentprotectiontolegaladvertisingonradioandtelevision,yetitisroutinelyallowed.
SomestateshaveattemptedtolimititbeyondthegenericrestrictionsthatappearinRules7.1and7.2.

InRePrimus[19]
JusticePowelldeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.ThequestionbeforethecourtwaswhetheraStatemaypunishamemberofitsBar
who,seekingtofurtherpoliticalandideologicalgoalsthroughassociationalactivity,includinglitigation,advisesalaypersonofherlegalrightsand
disclosesinasubsequentletterthatfreelegalassistanceisavailablefromanonprofitorganizationwithwhichthelawyerandherassociatedare
affiliated.Appellant,amemberoftheBarofSouthCarolina,receivedapublicreprimandforwritingsuchaletter.

Shapero
Shapero
Ohralik
Shapero
FloridaBarv.WentForIt[20]
establishedasignificantlimittotargetedadvertisinginsituationswheretherehadbeenadisasterortragedy.The
FloridaStateBarhadproposedanamendmenttoitsownrulesthatwouldprohibitthetargeteddirectmailsolicitationofdisasterortragedyvictims

Before
affordedFirstAmendmentprotectiontodirectmailsolicitation,therewassomequestionwhetheralawyerwhobroughtaclassaction
couldseektocommunicatewithpotentialclassmembers(beforeclasscertification)bytargetedmail.Today,after
,twoquestionsremain:
despite
,doestheFirstAmendmentaffordclassactionlawyersadditionalprotectionforinpersonsolicitationofclassmembers?Despite
canacourtorderaclassactionlawyernottocontactpotentialclassmembersthroughthemail?

forthirtydays.[21]Inafivetofourruling,theSupremeCourtupheldthisadvertisingprohibition.Thecourtdeterminedthatthethreeprongtest
promulgatedinCentralHudsonGas&ElectricCorp.v.PublicServiceCommissionwastheappropriatetesttodetermineifthethirtydaybancrossed
theboundsofconstitutionalprotectionaffordedcommercialspeech.[22]ThethreefactorstobeconsideredundertheCentralHudsontestare:
First,thegovernmentmustassertasubstantialinterestinsupportofitsregulationSecond,thegovernmentmustdemonstratethattherestrictionon
commercialspeechdirectlyandmateriallyadvancesthatinterestandthird,theregulationmustbenarrowlydrawn.
TheCourtfoundtheinterestsinprotectingprivacyandtranquilityofpotentialclientsfromcommercialintrusionduringgrievingandinpreventingthe
outrageandirritationwiththelawyersthatdirectsolicitationcancausewhendoneshortlyafteranaccidenttobesubstantial.Regulatingthe
practicesofprofessions,theprotectionofpotentialclientsprivacy,andprivacyofthehomeallhaveahistoryinSupremeCourtcaselawasbeing
compellingorsubstantialinterests,andwereupheldbytheCourttobesubstantialinterestsin

WentForIt.

Thattherestrictionsdirectlyandmateriallyadvancethestateinterestinthiscasewasbasedonatwoyearstudyoflawyeradvertisingand
solicitation.Accordingtothestudy,
arandomsamplingofpersonswhoreceiveddirectmailadvertisingfromlawyersin1987revealedthat45%believedthatdirectmailsolicitationis
designedtotakeadvantageofgullibleorunstablepeople34%foundsuchtacticsannoyingorirritating26%founditaninvasionofyourprivacy
and24%reportedthatitmadethemangry.[23]
Significantly,twentysevenpercentofdirectmailrecipientsreportedthattheirregardforthelegalprofessionandforthejudicialprocessasawhole
waslowerasaresultofreceivingthedirectmail.Thesummaryofthistwoyearstudycontainsbothstatisticalandanecdotaldatathatsupportsthe
BarscontentionsthattheFloridapublicviewsdirectmailsolicitationsintheimmediatewakeofaccidentsasanintrusiononprivacythatreflects
poorlyupontheprofession.Thestatisticaldata,combinedwiththeanecdotaldatathattheCourtremarkedwasnoteworthyforitsbreadthand
detail,madethisreportsufficientevidenceofthedirectnessandmaterialnessofthestatesrestriction.
ThethirtydaybanondirectmailingsmetthethirdpartofthetesttheCourtdeterminedthattheprohibitionwasnarrowlydrawn.TheCourtdidnot
holdthatthethirtydaywaitingperiodwasthebestsolution,butratherthatthescopeisinproportiontotheinterestserved,thatemploysnot
necessarilytheleastrestrictivemeansbutmeansnarrowlytailoredtoachievethedesiredobjective.Thisrulinghasallowedforotherstatesto
createtheirownthirtydayrulesandtoestablishalternativemeansofregulatingdirectmailsolicitationaswell.
TheCourtdistinguishedthiscasefromShapero,whichonfirstglanceappearstobecontrolling,onthreegrounds.First,inShapero,theactiondidnot
meetintermediatescrutinytobeaprivacyviolationthestatefocusedontheinherentoverreachingnatureoftargetedmailsolicitations.Second,
Shaperodealtwithabroadbanwithoutregardtotimeframeortypeofrecipient.Third,therewasevidenceofactualharmresultingfromtargeted
mailingsdemonstratedin
,throughthestatisticalstudyresults.

WentForIt
ThedissentinWentForItfeltthatShaperoshouldhavecontrolledandthattheCourtwasmistakenindistinguishingit.JusticeKennedy,indissent,
http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

4/8

1/11/2017

AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

WentForIt

Thedissentin
feltthatShaperoshouldhavecontrolledandthattheCourtwasmistakenindistinguishingit.JusticeKennedy,indissent,
statedthattheCourtsrationalewasnotvalid,becausewedonotallowrestrictionsonspeechtobejustifiedonthegroundthattheexpressionmight
offendthelistener.AssumingarguendothatthefirstprongoftheCentralHudsontestwassatisfied,thedissentbelievedthattheevidenceofthe
studywasslightandunscientific,andthusunsatisfactorytosatisfythesecondprong.Withregardtothethirdprong,thedissentfeltthattheflat
thirtydaybanwasnotsufficientlynarrow,asitdoesnotdistinguishbetweeninjuriesofvaryingseverity.
Thereisalsoasignificantpotentialforharmfromtherestrictionthatthedissentbelievesmakestheruleunfavorable.Thedissentstatedthatthereis
areal[potential]riskthatsomevictimsmightthinknoattorneywillbeinterestedenoughtohelpthem.Itisatthisprecisetimethatsoundlegal
advicemaybenecessaryandmosturgent.Thispotentialofharmfromtheban,coupledwiththelackofnarrowtailoring,isthestrongestargumentof
thedissent.Thestatedpurposeofadvertisinginthelegalprofessionistomakelegalservicesavailabletothosewhowouldnotnecessarilyhave
accesstosuchservices.Arestrictiononadvertising,accordingtothedissent,needstoproduceabenefitforthevictimsthatoutweighstheirpotential
lossoflegalservicesatacrucialtime.
Scholarsquestiontheactualimpacttargetedmailinghasuponthepublicsnegativeperceptionofthelegalprofession.[24]Becausethenegative
opinionofattorneyspredatedthelegalizationofdirectsolicitation,suchactionisunlikelytofurtherthatimpression.Nothingintheempirical
evidence[indicates]thethirtydaybanontargetedmailingwouldhaveanyimpactontheattitudetowardlawyers.[25]Infact,theABAfoundthatthe
negativeimageofthelegalprofessionismorelikelytoresultfromjuryserviceorfrombeingsued.TheABAcitesthelegalprofessionsattributionof
thenegativeimagetoadvertisingandsolicitation,whilethepublicrarelymentionsadvertisingasafactor.[26]TheABAspollfurtherdiscoveredthat
fiftysevenpercentandfortyeightpercentofrespondentsapprovedoflawyeradvertisinginnewspapersandontelevision,respectively.[27]Whilethe
polldoesnotencompassdirectsolicitation,halfofthosepolledapproveoflegaladvertisingtechniques.Contrarytothebeliefthatadvertisingand
solicitationcontributetothecriticalviewoflawyers,studiesrevealdignifiedadvertisingpromotesrespectforthelegalprofession.Finally,the
argumentthatpeoplewillnotseeklegalserviceduetotheirnegativeconceptionoftheprofessionischallengedbythepopulationsincreased
representationbylawyers.
Manystatesandscholarsrecognizetheessentialinterestthepublichasinaccesstoinformationregardingitslegalrightsandservices.[28]
Advertisingandpermissiblecommunicationmakeitpossibleforaprospectiveclienttobeinformedabouttheneedforlegalservices,andaboutthe
qualificationsofavailablelawyersandlawfirms,withoutsubjectingtheprospectiveclienttoimpermissiblepersuasionthatmayoverwhelmtheclients
judgment.TheuseofgeneraladvertisingandcommunicationspermittedunderShaperototransmitinformationfromlawyertoprospectiveclient,
ratherthanimpermissibledirectcontact,willhelptoassurethattheinformationflowscleanlyaswellasfreely.
Thispublicinterestininformationisfacilitatedbytheacceptanceofdirectsolicitationbutisinhibitedbyawaitingperiodonsuchcommunication.
Opponentsof
arguethatthedecisionbothpreventswillingclientsfromreceivingvaluableinformationandfailstoencouragethefree
flowofcommercialinformationtotheconsumer.[29]Theimpositionofawaitingperiodcouldeitherpreventinformationfromreachingthosewho
maynotrealizetheyareinneedoflegalservicesorcauseaffectedpartiestobelievethatnoattorneysareinterestedintheircases.[30]

WentForIt

Furthermore,opponentsofthewaitingperiodcontendthatthereisnocoercivenaturetotheinformationgivenitsdisposability,easyidentificationas
advertising,andlackofthepersonalintrusionthataccompaniesinpersonortelephonesolicitations.Waitingperiodproponentsarguethatrecipients
inafragileemotionalstatearemoresusceptibletoundueinfluence.However,asolicitationletterisdisposableinthesamemanneraswithmost
unwantedmailandlacksthepowerandimpositionpresentedbyaninpersonortelephonesolicitation.Additionally,rulesrequiringadirect
solicitationtobeconspicuouslylabeledasLawyerAdvertisingwouldsufficetowarnpartiesofitsnaturepriortoopeningthecommunication,
allowingaccesstotheinformationifdesiredandeliminatingthepotentialfordisturbanceandcoercionandtheneedforthewaitingperiod.
DirectSolicitationsandTechnology
Theapplicationoflegaladvertisingrules,includingthoseregardingdirectsolicitationsandwaitingperiods,totechnologicalinnovationsremains
uncertaininmanyjurisdictions.ThegrowthoftheInternetandtheuseofwebsites,chatrooms,bulletinboards,andelectronicmail(email)bylegal
professionalsrequiresaninquiryintohowexistingruleswillaffectlegaladvertising,particularlydirectsolicitation.WhilesomestatesintheUnited
Stateshavemodifiedtheirprofessionalresponsibilitycodestoaccountforthelatesttechnologicalchanges,otherscurrentlyoperateunder
technologicallysilentprovisions.ProposedmodificationstotheModelRules,stateethicsopinions,andscholarsindicatethemannerinwhichthelawis
likelytochangeinordertoreflectthesenowprevalentmodesofcommunication.
Inanethicsopinion,Michiganfoundthatwebsitesfunctionmorelikeclientaccessedbrochuresthansolicitations,andbecausetheusermustinitiate
accesstothewebsiteinformation,noneoftherulespertainingtoinperson,telephone,ordirectsolicitationareapplicabletowebsites.[31]However,
becausethewebsitesareavailableadvertising,bothMichigansRules7.1and7.2mustbefollowed.Michigandismissestheanalogyoflivetelephone
solicitation,despitethewebsitestechnicalmethodoftransmissionofinformation.Althoughavisittothesiteinvolvesuseoftelephonelines,the
contactisnotlivesoastobeaprohibitedcontact.Moreover,thecontact[does]notinvolveanuninvitedsolicitationbutismoreakintoaclients
telephoningthefirmandaskingforinformation.[32]Websiteshavealsobeendescribedaspassiveadvertisingopportunitieswhenengagedbythe
clientinthepursuitofinformation.Thispassivenatureofwebsitesdoesnotexistinnewinteractivewebsiteswhereattorneyscanrespondto
informationrequestsratherthaninformationsimplybeingreadbythevisitor.Theseinteractivesitesarouseconcernsofpotentialundueinfluencethat
couldtranspirewhenvisitorsonlywantinformationandattorneyssignupinordertofacilitatethegrowthoftheirclientele.Dependingontheirformat,
theseinteractivewebsitesmightbemoreanalogoustolivetelephonesolicitationordirectmailingandthussubjecttoModelRule7.3.Toavoid
potentialliabilityunderethicalrules,websitescouldincludedisclaimerseliminatingconfusionastowhetherornotthewebsiteisasolicitation.

FloridaBarv.WentForItandKentuckyBarv.Shapero,

Followingthedecisionsin
theworldofdirectmailsolicitationchangedrapidly.Statesand
scholarsareindisagreementregardingthevalueofimposingwaitingperiodsondirectmailsolicitations.Asaresult,substantialdifferenceexists
betweenthetreatmentofsuchsolicitationbytheModelRulesandcertainstaterules.Similarly,thereisnounifiedapproachtoemergingformsof
technologicalcommunicationandtheirpermissibilityasdirectmailsolicitation.Evenasstatesseemtocreaterelevantrules,littleremainsstaticinthe
worldoflegaladvertisingandsolicitation.Seeminglyestablishedprinciples,suchasthosefoundin
,stillremaincontroversialand
contentious.Inlightoftheeverchanginglandscapeofbothstatelawandmeansofcommunication,thepoliciesbehindadvertisingandsolicitation
rulescontinuallyresurfaceandrequiresuchrulestobereevaluatedandreinterpretedtomeetthevaryingneedsanddesiresofindividualstates,the
public,thelegalprofession,andthecourts.Asresolutioncomestoexistingdilemmas,suchasthatofelectroniccommunication,newquandarieswill
ariseinadvertising,duetotheinnovationsintechnologyandthechanginggoalsofthelegalprofession,forcingtheprofessiontoattemptonceagain
tomaintainitsdignity,followtherules,andfulfillitsunderlyingobligationtothepublicandjustice.

WentForIt

ModelRulesoftheAmericanBarAssociation.
TheAmericanBarAssociationsModelRulesalsolayoutspecificguidelinesforattorneystofollow.TheModelRulescontainprohibitionsonmisleading
andselfcongratulatoryadvertising,aswellasspecificguidelinesforattorneystofollow.Withrespecttosolicitation,ModelRule7.3(c)issomewhat
lesssweepingthanmanylocalrules.Itallowswrittenorrecordedcommunicationswithpotentialclientswithwhomthelawyerhasnofamilyorprior
professionalrelationship,aslongastheyincludethewordsAdvertisingMaterialontheoutsideenvelopeofwrittenmaterialoratthebeginningand
endingofanyrecordedcommunication.
UnderModelRule7.3(a),however,alawyerisprohibitedfromengagingininpersonorlivetelephonecontact[to]solicitprofessionalemployment
fromaprospectiveclientwithwhomthelawyerhasnofamilyorpriorprofessionalrelationshipwhenasignificantmotiveforthelawyerdoingsoisthe
lawyerspecuniarygain.Rule7.3(b)alsoprohibitssolicitationbyanymeans,includingwrittenorrecordedcommunication,whentheprospectiveclient
hasmadeknowntothelawyeradesirenottobesolicited,orwhenthesolicitationinvolvescoercion,duress,orharassment.
Restrictionssuchasthoseoutlinedabovehavebeenthesubjectofconsiderabledebate.Ontheonehand,barassociationszealouslydefendthemas 5/8
http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

1/11/2017

AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

Restrictionssuchasthoseoutlinedabovehavebeenthesubjectofconsiderabledebate.Ontheonehand,barassociationszealouslydefendthemas
necessaryformaintainingprofessionalismandprotectingthepublicfromunscrupulouslawyers.Ontheotherhand,manyattorneysthinktheygotoo
far.Afterall,lawisabusinessasmuchlikeanyother.Thesedays,lawyershavetounderstandaccounting,businessplanning,andyes,marketing,in
ordertosurviveinanincreasinglycompetitiveenvironment.
TheModelRulesofProfessionalConduct,whichhavebeenadoptedin44statesintheUnitedStatesprovideasfollows:[33]
(a)Alawyershallnotbyinperson,livetelephoneorrealtimeelectroniccontactsolicitprofessionalemploymentfromaprospectiveclientwhena
significantmotiveforthelawyersdoingsoisthelawyerspecuniarygain,unlessthepersoncontacted:
(1)isalawyer,or
(2)hasafamily,closepersonalorpriorprofessionalrelationshipwiththelawyer.[34]
Thisnonsolicitationrulefollowsthelongstandingpolicyagainstlawyersdirectlysolicitingclients.Thisisdesignedtopreventwhatiseuphemistically
calledambulancechasing,whichgivesvisionsoflawyersdescendingonaccidentvictimsbyfollowingthesoundsofsirens.
TheruleisfurtherexplainedbytheCommentstoModelRule7.3asfollows:[35]
1.Thereisapotentialforabuseinherentindirectinpersonorlivetelephonecontactbyalawyerwithaperspectiveclientknowntoneedlegal
services.Theseformsofcontactbetweenalawyerandaspecificallytargetedrecipientsubjectthelaypersontotheprivateimportuningofthetrained
advocateinadirectinterpersonalencounter.Theprospectiveclient,whomayalreadyfeeloverwhelmedbythecircumstancesgivingrisetotheneed
forlegalservices,mayfinditdifficultfullytoevaluateallavailablealternativeswithreasonedjudgmentandappropriateselfinterestinthefaceofthe
lawyerspresenceandinsistenceuponbeingretainedimmediately.Thesituationisfraughtwiththepossibilityofundueinfluence,intimidationand
overreaching.
2.Thispotentialforabuseinherentindirectinperson,livetelephoneorrealtimeelectronicsolicitationofprospectiveclientsjustifiesitsprohibition,
particularlysincelawyeradvertisingandwrittenandrecordedcommunicationpermittedunderthisruleofferalternativemeansofconveyingnecessary
informationtothosewhomaybeinneedoflegalservices.Writtenandrecordedcommunicationsthatmaybemailedorelectronicallytransmitted
makeitpossibleforaprospectiveclienttobeinformedabouttheneedforlegalservices,andaboutthequalificationsofavailablelawyersandlaw
firms,withoutsubjectingtheprospectiveclienttodirectinperson,livetelephoneorrealtimeelectronicpersuasionthatmayoverwhelmtheclients
judgment.
UnderModelRule8.3(a),alawyerthatbecomesawareofanethicalviolationbyanotherlawyerisalsoobligatedtoreportsuchviolationtothe
respectivestategoverningbody.[36]
Itisuniversallyviewedthatitisanunethicalsolicitationofanonclientforalawyertocontactbyphoneorinpersonanaccidentvictiminhopesof
representingthepersoninsubsequentlitigationforhisinjuries.
DirectmailsolicitationofpotentialclientswhoareinneedoflegalserviceshasbeenlongheldtobeprotectedfreedomofspeechundertheFirstand
FourteenthAmendments.[37]ModelRule7(c)setsforththelimitedregulationofdirectmailsolicitation,whichhasbeenapprovedbytheSupreme
Court.Thisrulerequiresthecommunicationtobesenttothestatesdisciplinaryboardandgovernstheformatofthedisclosurescontainedinthe
communication.
Inthebankruptcyarena,variationsofthefollowingscenariosarecommonplace:
1.Consumerdebtorscounselmakedirectphonecontactwith,orsendmailto,nonclientswhoaresubjectsofgarnishmentsorforeclosureproceedings
inordertosolicittheirrepresentationinachapter7or13proceeding.
2.Counsel,uponlearningofthefilingofachapter11,directlycontactbyphoneorinpersononeormoreofthecreditorscommitteesoliciting
representationofeitherthecreditororthecommitteeitself.
3.Counsel,afterreviewingbankruptcyschedules,contactoneormorepersonsorentitieslistedascreditorsorequityholdersbyphoneormail
solicitingtheirrepresentationinthependingcase.
4.Counselreviewthedocketsforadversaryproceedingssuchaspreferentialtransferavoidanceactionsandthencontactdefendantsbyphoneormail
solicitingtheirrepresentation.
Oftheforegoingexamples,thosethatinvolvedirectsolicitationbyphoneorinpersonappeartoviolatethenonsolicitationrulegoverningprofessional
conductandcauseotherlawyerstobeethicallyboundtoreportsuchincidentsaspossibleethicalviolations.Thesolicitationsbymailarepermissible
aslongastheyotherwise17complywiththelimitationcontainedinModelRule7.3(c).
Isaphoneoraninpersoncontactbybankruptcycounselsolicitinganonclienttobecomehis,heroritsclientinayettobefiledorinapending
bankruptcyproceedinganylessunethicalthanalawyerappearingatthedoorofthehospitalroom?
Asecondissuearisesundervariousholdingsthatcounselemployedbyacommitteeortheestatecanhavehisorherfeesdeniedevenifcounselwas
properlyappointedbythecourt,providevaluableservicesandlateraredeemedtonotbedisinterested.[38]Thetermdisinterestedpersonis
definedin101(14)oftheBankruptcyCodeinpertinentpartasfollows:
101(14)Disinterestedpersonmeanspersonthat
(E)doesnothaveaninterestmateriallyadversetotheinterestoftheestateoranyclassofcreditorsorequitysecurityholdersforanyreason.
Anattorneywhoacquiresrepresentationofaclient,whetheritbeadebtor,trustee,thecreditororacommitteefromanunethicalsolicitationwould
arguablyholdaninterestthatismateriallyadversetotheestateoraclassofcreditorsorequityholders.Thiswouldresultinadenialoffeesaswell
aspossiblesanctions.
Itistimethatthebankruptcybartakesahardlookatitscollectiveandindividualethicalresponsibilitiestonotonlycomplywiththenonsolicitation
rulesbutalsotoreportthosewhochoosetoignorethem.
EnglishPosition
InEngland,theremovalofrestrictionsonadvertisingwasinpart,areactiontothethreatofcompetitionbylicensedconveyors.Fromapositionwhere
individualadvertisingwasconsideredinconsistentwiththeprofessionalimageofsolicitorsandwheretherewererulesdeterminingthesizeandstyle
ofeventhenameofthepracticeofthepremises,thelawsociety[39]movedspeedilytoavirtuallyadvertisingregime.Thelawgoverning
advertisementsiscontainedintheSolicitorsPublicityCodeof1990.Thesoleremainingrestraintistherequirementthattheadvertisingmustnot
impairthesolicitorsindependenceandintegrityandmustnotbringtheprofessionintodisrepute.
Sendingbrochuresandleafletsisnowcommonthoughlargerandwellestablishedfirmsdolessadvertisingthanthewellestablishedpractices.The 6/8
http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

1/11/2017

AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!

Sendingbrochuresandleafletsisnowcommonthoughlargerandwellestablishedfirmsdolessadvertisingthanthewellestablishedpractices.The
lawgoverningadvertisingbybarristersallowsbarristerstoengageinanyadvertisingorpromotion,whichconfirmstoBritishCodesofadvertisingand
salespromotion.Advertisementsmayincludephotographsorotherillustrationsofthebarrister,statementofratesandmethodsofcharging
statementaboutthenatureandextentofbarristersserviceinformationaboutanycaseinwhichthebarristerappearedwherewuchinformationhas
beenpubliclyavailable.
Mr.JusticeMartinhasobservedthatadvertisingisunprofessionalconductonpartoftheadvocate.Thereisaleadingdistinctionbetweenprofessional
menononehandandthoseengagedintradeandbusinessontheother.Keencompetitionatthebarisoneofthemaincausesofloweringof
professionalethics.Itisaruleofetiquetteinthelegalprofessionthatnoattemptshouldbemadetoadvertiseo0neselfdirectlyorindirectly.Sucha
courseofactiontendstolowerthedignityoftheprofessionandisundoubtedlyakintotouting.
ItisforthisreasonthatinEnglandnoBarristerisallowedtowritetosolicitorsoreventobrotherpractitionersoncircuit,extollinghisservices,
experienceorabilitytowork.Advertisementsofallformsareconsideredtobehighlyimproper.Advertisingbylawyershasbeencomparedtotouting.
[40]
Conclusion
AccordingtoProfJaygovind,ProfessorNLSIU,lawisacommercialactivitylikeanyotherthereforeadvertisingshouldbeallowedwiththerequired
regulations.[41]HoweverProfMohanGopalformerdirectorofNLSIUisoftheopinionthatlawcannotbeseenasacommercialactivityinviewofthe
publicpolicygoalsofaccesstolegalservices,qualityofservices,andtheacquiringofnewskills.HoweverhebelievesthatatthesametimeIndia
wouldbelosingoutontheglobalpieinviewofGATSifadvertisingwerenottobepermitted.
ThetrendofdecisionsintheUShasbeentoviewthelawasacommercialactivityandthereforeaffordittheprotectionavailabletocommercial
speechandthatanystaterestrictionsoncommercialspeechwillhavetoshowthatitcausedactualharm.Similartrendsarealsotobefoundinother
jurisdictionsnoticeablyUKwherelimitedadvertisinghasnowbeenallowed.
InlightoftheseitisdesirablethattherulesbemodifiedinIndia,toallowadvertisingtoalimitedextenttoensurealevelplayingfieldwiththe
foreignfirms.Alsobecausethemainreasonfornotallowingadvertisingistoprotectgullibleclientswhichisnotthecaseforcorporateworkthatmost
oftheselawfirmsareengagedin.howeverthebanonotherformsofsolicitationshouldstay.
Lawisanobleprofessionanditsstatusshouldbepreserved.Thequalityofworkshouldattractclientsandnotsoliciting.Theconductofafew
advocateswhoresorttobriefbeggingandtoutismishighlydisprovable.Itistruethatthereisalotofcompetitionatthebarandwhenthereareso
manyadvocatesitisdifficulttogetnoticedbutitdoesnotjustifyconductsuchasambulancechasing,thekindwhichwasnotiedinIndiaafterthe
BhopalgastragedywhenalotofforeignlawyersalsocametoIndiatosolicitlitigation.
Bibliography
Articles
AMoore,FloridaBarv.WentForItInc.:RefiningtheConstitutionalStandardforEvaluatingStateRestrictionsonLegalAdvertising,45Cath.U.
L.Rev.1351,1361(1996).
FarzanaKanji,ProfessionalResponsibilityTheTenthCircuitStrikesDownNewMexicosBanonTargetedDirectMailLawyerAdvertising
Renov.DisciplinaryBoardoftheSupremeCourt,28N.M.L.REV.641,650(1998).
GaryA.Hengstler,VoxPopuli:ThePublicPerceptionofLawyers:ABAPoll,79A.B.A.J.60(1993).
Hon.WilliamCanby,Jr.,Marketing,OnLawyerAdvertising,37Ariz.Attorney29(2001)Susan
LeonardE.Gross,ThePublicHatesLawyers:WhyShouldWeCare?,29SetonHallL.Rev.1405,1433(1999).
MaryR.Eikenberry,LawyerAdvertisingandSolicitationJustifyingRestrictionsonLawyersSpeech:FloridaBarv.WentForIt,Inc.,31L.W.Law
Rev.231,243(1996).
Books

AdvocacyandProfessionalEthics,(1stedn.,Allahabad:WadhwaandCo,2000).
SanjivaRao,TheAdvocatesAct,(Allahabad:TheLawBookCo,1997).
K.GururajaChari,

Websites
Mich.BarStandingComm.onProfessionalandJudicialEthics,Op.RI276(1996),www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_[2]opinion/ri276.htm
PetitionofTennesseeBaroftheAdoptionofProposedRulesofProfessionalConduct,,www.tba.org/committees/conduct/tbrpcpet.html.[3]
[1]AIR1984SC618.
[2]

BarCouncilofMaharashtrav.M.V.Dhabolkar,AIR1976SC242.
[3]K.GururajaChari ,AdvocacyandProfessionalEthics,(1stedn.,Allahabad:WadhwaandCo,2000)atpg59.
[4]Id.
[5]Id.
[6]CDSekkizharv.SecretaryBarCouncil ,AIR1967Mad35.
[7]A.I.R.1929Bombay335

K,APleader,AIR1936Pesh114.

[8]

[9]AIR.1952All491.
[10](1976)2SupremeCourtCases291.
[11]B.C.I.TR.CaseNo.38/1994.
[12](2003)1SCC384.
[13]433U.S.350.
[14]471U.S.626(1985).
[15]471U.S.626(1985).
http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

7/8

1/11/2017
AdvertisingbyLawyers|Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotesandmore!
[14]471U.S.626(1985).
[15]471U.S.626(1985).

[16]452U.S.89(1981).
[17]751F.2d1193(11thCir.1985).
[18]486U.S.466.
[19]436U.S.412(1978).
[20]515U.S.618(1995).

WentForIt,515U.S.at620.
[22]CentralHudsonGas&ElectricCorp.v.PublicServiceCommn,447U.S.557,564(1980).
[23]Supranote17.
[21]See

[24]FarzanaKanji,ProfessionalResponsibilityTheTenthCircuitStrikesDownNewMexicosBanonTargetedDirectMailLawyerAdvertisingReno
v.DisciplinaryBoardoftheSupremeCourt,28N.M.L.Rev.641,650(1998).
[25]LeonardE.Gross,ThePublicHatesLawyers:WhyShouldWeCare?,29SetonHallL.Rev.1405,1433(1999).
[26]MaryR.Eikenberry,LawyerAdvertisingandSolicitationJustifyingRestrictionsonLawyersSpeech:FloridaBarv.WentForIt,Inc.,31LWLaw.
REV.231,243(1996).
[27]SeeGaryA.Hengstler,VoxPopuli:ThePublicPerceptionofLawyers:ABAPoll,79A.B.A.J.60(1993).
[28]Hon.WilliamCanby,Jr.,Marketing,OnLawyerAdvertising,37ARIZ.ATTORNEY29(2001)(arguingthatthereisnojustificationforpreventing
advertisingdirectedtothosemostinneedoftheadvertisedservices).
[29]SusanA.Moore,FloridaBarv.WentForItInc.:RefiningtheConstitutionalStandardforEvaluatingStateRestrictionsonLegalAdvertising,45
Cath.U.L.Rev.1351,1361(1996).

WentForIt,515U.S.at642(Kennedy,J.,dissenting).

[30]

[31]Mich.BarStandingComm.onProfessionalandJudicialEthics,Op.RI276(1996),www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_[2]opinion/ri
276.htm.

Id

[32] .
[33]PetitionofTennesseeBaroftheAdoptionofProposedRulesofProfessionalConduct,www.tba.org/committees/conduct/tbrpcpet.html.[3]
[34]ABAModelRulesofProfessionalConductR.7.3(a).
[35]ModelRulesofProfessionalConductR.7.3(a)cmt.
[36]Comment[1]toModelRule8.3statesthatselfregulationofthelegalprofessionrequiresthatmembersoftheprofessioninitiatedisciplinary
investigationwhentheyknowoftheviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct.ModelRulesofProfessionalConductR.8.3cmt.

Shaperov.KentuckyBarAssoc.,486U.S.466108S.Ct.1916100L.Ed2nd475(1988).
[38]Michelv.Fed.Dept.StoresInc.,44F.3d1310,1319(6thCir.1995)InreHelenaCorp.,63F.3d877(9thCir1995)andInreBigRiversElectric
Corp.,2002U.S.Dist.LEXIS16174(W.D.Ky.2002).
[37]

[39]LawyersCollective,October,2001,pg4.

Advocates,Allaahbad,inthematterof,AIR1934All1067.

[40]

[41]InterviewPublishedinLawyersCollective,October,2001,pg4.
Endnotes:
1.AdvertisingforLawyersProfessionalEthics:http://www.legalsutra.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/10/13/advertisingbylawyers/Advertising
forlawyersethics.doc
2.www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_:http://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_
3.www.tba.org/committees/conduct/tbrpcpet.html.:http://www.tba.org/committees/conduct/tbrpcpet.html.
Norelatedposts.
SourceURL:http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/

Copyright2017Legalsutra|LawStudents'KnowledgeBaseLawSchoolProjects,mootcourtmemorials,classandcasenotes
andmore!unlessotherwisenoted.

http://legalsutra.com/216/advertisingbylawyers/print/

8/8