‼️
Prof Responsibility • Advertising and Solicitations
PR#006
Legal Definition
Under Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2, no advertisement shall contain or refer to any of the following:
(1) Any guarantee or warranty regarding the outcome of a legal matter as a result of representation by the licensee.
(2) Statements or symbols stating that the licensee featured in the advertisement can generally obtain immediate cash or quick settlements.
(3) (a) An impersonation of the name, voice, photograph, or electronic image of any person other than the lawyer, directly or implicitly purporting to be that of a lawyer; or (b) An impersonation of the name, voice, photograph, or electronic image of any person, directly or implicitly purporting to be a client of the licensee featured in the advertisement, or a dramatization of events, unless disclosure of the impersonation or dramatization is made in the advertisement; or (c) a spokesperson, including a celebrity spokesperson, unless there is disclosure of the spokesperson’s title.
(4) A statement that a licensee offers representation on a contingent basis unless the statement also advises whether a client will be held responsible for any costs advanced by the licensee when no recovery is obtained on behalf of the client. If the client will not be held responsible for costs, no disclosure is required.
(1) Any guarantee or warranty regarding the outcome of a legal matter as a result of representation by the licensee.
(2) Statements or symbols stating that the licensee featured in the advertisement can generally obtain immediate cash or quick settlements.
(3) (a) An impersonation of the name, voice, photograph, or electronic image of any person other than the lawyer, directly or implicitly purporting to be that of a lawyer; or (b) An impersonation of the name, voice, photograph, or electronic image of any person, directly or implicitly purporting to be a client of the licensee featured in the advertisement, or a dramatization of events, unless disclosure of the impersonation or dramatization is made in the advertisement; or (c) a spokesperson, including a celebrity spokesperson, unless there is disclosure of the spokesperson’s title.
(4) A statement that a licensee offers representation on a contingent basis unless the statement also advises whether a client will be held responsible for any costs advanced by the licensee when no recovery is obtained on behalf of the client. If the client will not be held responsible for costs, no disclosure is required.
Plain English Explanation
One day, you get rear ended by another car in traffic. You are sore, upset, and scared of the medical bills. When you get home, you turn on the TV and flip through the channels. Suddenly, you come across a lawyer commercial. It's flashy, it's got a celebrity, and it promises you'll win millions. Sounds great, right? Well, California law says, "Not so fast!"
This rule is all about keeping lawyer advertising honest and clear. It's like a "no tricks" policy for legal ads. Why? Because when people need a lawyer, they're often in a tough spot. They might be hurt, in trouble, or dealing with a big problem. The last thing they need is to be misled by an ad that promises the moon.
Let's break it down:
(1) No guarantees: Lawyers can't promise you'll win. Every case is different, and there are no sure things in law.
(2) No "quick cash" claims: Lawyers can't say they'll get you money super fast. Legal stuff often takes time.
(3) No fake people: If an ad shows a "client" talking about how great the lawyer is, it has to be real or say it's just acting.
(4) Celebrity rules: If a famous person is in the ad, it needs to explain who they are. They can't pretend to be a lawyer or a client.
(5) Money talk: If a lawyer says, "You don't pay unless we win," they need to explain if you might still have to pay for things like court fees.
Think of it like nutrition labels on food. Just as those labels help you know what's really in your food, these rules help you know what's really behind a lawyer's ad. It's all about giving you the real picture, not just a shiny sales pitch.
This rule is all about keeping lawyer advertising honest and clear. It's like a "no tricks" policy for legal ads. Why? Because when people need a lawyer, they're often in a tough spot. They might be hurt, in trouble, or dealing with a big problem. The last thing they need is to be misled by an ad that promises the moon.
Let's break it down:
(1) No guarantees: Lawyers can't promise you'll win. Every case is different, and there are no sure things in law.
(2) No "quick cash" claims: Lawyers can't say they'll get you money super fast. Legal stuff often takes time.
(3) No fake people: If an ad shows a "client" talking about how great the lawyer is, it has to be real or say it's just acting.
(4) Celebrity rules: If a famous person is in the ad, it needs to explain who they are. They can't pretend to be a lawyer or a client.
(5) Money talk: If a lawyer says, "You don't pay unless we win," they need to explain if you might still have to pay for things like court fees.
Think of it like nutrition labels on food. Just as those labels help you know what's really in your food, these rules help you know what's really behind a lawyer's ad. It's all about giving you the real picture, not just a shiny sales pitch.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob, a personal injury lawyer, creates a TV commercial where he stands in front of a courthouse and declares, "Hire me, and I guarantee you'll win your case!" Sam, who was recently injured in a car accident, sees the ad and decides to hire Bob based on this promise. Result: Bob has violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(a) by guaranteeing the outcome of a legal matter. This type of absolute guarantee is prohibited because it can create unrealistic expectations and potentially mislead clients like Sam. Legal cases are complex and outcomes can never be guaranteed.
Hypo 2: Bob, a divorce attorney, runs a radio ad where he claims, "Call me now, and I'll get you a quick settlement and immediate cash from your ex!" Sam, who's considering a divorce, hears this and decides to hire Bob, expecting a fast and easy process. Result: Bob has violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(b) by stating that he can generally obtain immediate cash or quick settlements. This kind of claim is prohibited because it can create unrealistic expectations about the speed and ease of legal proceedings. Divorce cases, like most legal matters, often take time and may not always result in immediate financial outcomes.
Hypo 3: Bob creates a TV commercial for his law firm. In it, he hires an actor to play a satisfied client who says, "Bob got me a million-dollar settlement in just one week!" The ad doesn't mention that this is a dramatization. Sam sees this ad and hires Bob, expecting similar results. Result: Bob has violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(c)(2) by using an impersonation of a client without disclosing that it's a dramatization. This rule exists to prevent potential clients like Sam from being misled by what appears to be real client testimonials. If Bob had included a clear disclosure that this was a dramatization, it would have been permissible.
Hypo 4: Bob, a class action lawyer, creates a billboard advertisement featuring a famous actor. The billboard shows the actor pointing at the camera and saying, "Bob's the lawyer you need!" without any explanation of who the actor is or their relationship to Bob's firm. Sam, a fan of the actor, sees this and decides to hire Bob. Result: Bob has violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(c)(3) by using a celebrity spokesperson without disclosing their title or role. This rule exists to prevent the implied endorsement of legal services by celebrities who may have no real connection to or experience with the lawyer. Bob should have included a disclosure like "Paid Actor" or "Celebrity Spokesperson" to comply with the rule. Without this disclosure, Bob's advertisement is misleading and could result in disciplinary action.
Hypo 5: Bob, an employment lawyer, puts up a billboard that says, "Wrongfully fired? I'll fight for you! No fee unless we win!" Sam, who was recently let go from his job, sees this and decides to hire Bob. During their first meeting, Bob explains that while his fee is contingent on winning, Sam will be responsible for court filing fees and expert witness costs regardless of the outcome. Result: In this case, Bob has not violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(d). Although he advertised representation on a contingent basis, he properly advised Sam during their meeting that Sam would be responsible for certain costs even if they don't win the case. The rule doesn't require this disclosure in the advertisement itself if the client will be held responsible for costs. This scenario demonstrates that as long as the lawyer provides accurate information about potential costs before taking on the client, they can advertise contingency fee arrangements without violating the rule.
Hypo 2: Bob, a divorce attorney, runs a radio ad where he claims, "Call me now, and I'll get you a quick settlement and immediate cash from your ex!" Sam, who's considering a divorce, hears this and decides to hire Bob, expecting a fast and easy process. Result: Bob has violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(b) by stating that he can generally obtain immediate cash or quick settlements. This kind of claim is prohibited because it can create unrealistic expectations about the speed and ease of legal proceedings. Divorce cases, like most legal matters, often take time and may not always result in immediate financial outcomes.
Hypo 3: Bob creates a TV commercial for his law firm. In it, he hires an actor to play a satisfied client who says, "Bob got me a million-dollar settlement in just one week!" The ad doesn't mention that this is a dramatization. Sam sees this ad and hires Bob, expecting similar results. Result: Bob has violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(c)(2) by using an impersonation of a client without disclosing that it's a dramatization. This rule exists to prevent potential clients like Sam from being misled by what appears to be real client testimonials. If Bob had included a clear disclosure that this was a dramatization, it would have been permissible.
Hypo 4: Bob, a class action lawyer, creates a billboard advertisement featuring a famous actor. The billboard shows the actor pointing at the camera and saying, "Bob's the lawyer you need!" without any explanation of who the actor is or their relationship to Bob's firm. Sam, a fan of the actor, sees this and decides to hire Bob. Result: Bob has violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(c)(3) by using a celebrity spokesperson without disclosing their title or role. This rule exists to prevent the implied endorsement of legal services by celebrities who may have no real connection to or experience with the lawyer. Bob should have included a disclosure like "Paid Actor" or "Celebrity Spokesperson" to comply with the rule. Without this disclosure, Bob's advertisement is misleading and could result in disciplinary action.
Hypo 5: Bob, an employment lawyer, puts up a billboard that says, "Wrongfully fired? I'll fight for you! No fee unless we win!" Sam, who was recently let go from his job, sees this and decides to hire Bob. During their first meeting, Bob explains that while his fee is contingent on winning, Sam will be responsible for court filing fees and expert witness costs regardless of the outcome. Result: In this case, Bob has not violated California Bus. & Prof. Code § 6157.2(d). Although he advertised representation on a contingent basis, he properly advised Sam during their meeting that Sam would be responsible for certain costs even if they don't win the case. The rule doesn't require this disclosure in the advertisement itself if the client will be held responsible for costs. This scenario demonstrates that as long as the lawyer provides accurate information about potential costs before taking on the client, they can advertise contingency fee arrangements without violating the rule.
Visual Aids
