Key Points

  • Research suggests the disclaimer may be misleading by not clarifying past case results were from a large law firm, not the solo practice.
  • It seems likely this could violate Missouri Rule 4-7.1(a) for omitting necessary facts and 4-7.1(b) for creating unjustified expectations.
  • The evidence leans toward the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) viewing this as potential professional misconduct, with possible disciplinary actions.

Disclaimer Analysis

The disclaimer states past results don’t guarantee future outcomes and each case varies, but it doesn’t mention the cited large settlements were achieved at a large law firm. This omission might mislead clients into thinking the solo attorney, in practice for 15 months, can replicate those results now, which could be unrealistic given the resource difference.

Potential Ethics Violations

Under Missouri Rule 4-7.1(a), communications must not omit facts making statements materially misleading. Not disclosing the firm context could violate this, as it might create unjustified expectations about the attorney’s current capabilities. Rule 4-7.1(b) also prohibits creating unjustified expectations, which listing past results without context could do.

Professional Misconduct

If the OCDC finds the advertising misleading, it could lead to disciplinary actions like reprimands or suspensions, depending on the severity and intent, as the OCDC investigates and prosecutes misconduct to protect the public.

Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Attorney Website Disclaimer and Ethics for Missouri

This analysis examines the disclaimer on an attorney’s website, focusing on the presentation of past case results achieved while the attorney was at a large law firm, now cited as part of their solo practice, specifically for the state of Missouri and what the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) would consider regarding ethics violations and professional misconduct. The disclaimer, extracted from the provided image, is as follows:

"COPYRIGHT © 2024 FRIEDMAN LAW FIRM LLC - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. NOTHING ON THIS SITE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE OR SITUATION. THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE, AND RECEIPT OR VIEWING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. THE CHOICE OF A LAWYER IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION AND SHOULD NOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON ADVERTISEMENTS. THE VERDICT OR SETTLEMENT OF YOUR OWN CASE WILL DEPEND UPON ITS PARTICULAR FACTS, PAST RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT AND MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS. THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS WEBSITE ARE NOT MEANT TO CAUSE ANY UNJUSTIFIED EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE MERITS OF YOUR OWN CLAIM. 2024 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Privacy Policy Contact Us Attorney Referrals"

This disclaimer is positioned below the copyright notice and above links to "Privacy Policy," "Contact Us," and "Attorney Referrals."

Legal Ethics Framework in Missouri

Legal ethics, particularly regarding attorney advertising, are governed by the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court. The relevant rules for this analysis are Rules 4-7.1 and 4-7.2, which align closely with the ABA Model Rules but include Missouri-specific interpretations.

Relevant Missouri Rules

  • Rule 4-7.1: "A lawyer shall not make a false or 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;
    • (c) proclaims results obtained on behalf of clients, such as the amount of a damage award or the lawyer’s record in obtaining favorable verdicts or settlements, without stating that past results afford no guarantee of future results and that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits."
  • Rule 4-7.2: Governs advertising, requiring submission to the Bar before dissemination and including a specific disclaimer: "The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements" for advertisements beyond basic firm information.

The commentary to Rule 4-7.1 in Missouri emphasizes that a communication is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the statement not materially misleading, and includes examples such as requiring disclaimers for dramatizations, paid endorsements, and part-time offices (Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 4-7.1).

Analysis of the Disclaimer

The disclaimer addresses several standard requirements for attorney advertising:

  • It states the information is for general purposes and not legal advice.
  • It clarifies that viewing the site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
  • It includes the required disclaimer under Rule 4-7.2: "THE CHOICE OF A LAWYER IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION AND SHOULD NOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON ADVERTISEMENTS."
  • It includes a standard disclaimer under Rule 4-7.1(c): "PAST RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT AND MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS," and adds, "THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS WEBSITE ARE NOT MEANT TO CAUSE ANY UNJUSTIFIED EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE MERITS OF YOUR OWN CLAIM."

However, the disclaimer does not address the critical context raised by the user: that the cited cases with large settlements and verdicts were achieved when the attorney was at a large law firm, not in their current solo practice. This omission is significant because:

  • Solo practices typically have fewer resources compared to large law firms, which may include multiple attorneys, support staff, and financial backing necessary for prosecuting complex cases leading to large settlements.
  • A reasonable potential client, seeing these results listed on the website, might assume they reflect the attorney’s current capabilities in solo practice, potentially leading to unjustified expectations about achievable outcomes.

Under Rule 4-7.1(a), a communication is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the statement not materially misleading. Here, the omission of the firm context (i.e., that the results were from a large law firm) could be seen as materially misleading, as it might lead clients to believe the solo attorney can replicate those results now, which may not be feasible given the resource disparity.

Additionally, under Rule 4-7.1(b), the presentation could be seen as likely to create unjustified expectations about results, especially if clients assume the solo practice has the same capabilities as the large firm. While the disclaimer includes general language about not guaranteeing outcomes, it does not mitigate the specific risk of misleading clients about the practice context.

Potential Ethics Violations

Based on the analysis, the disclaimer’s failure to disclose the context of the past results could violate:

  • Missouri Rule 4-7.1(a): By omitting a fact necessary to prevent the communication from being materially misleading. This is supported by the commentary, which emphasizes that omissions can render a statement misleading if they affect the overall impression (Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 4-7.1).
  • Missouri Rule 4-7.1(b): By potentially creating unjustified expectations about the attorney’s ability to achieve similar results in solo practice, given the resource differences.

Professional Misconduct and Disciplinary Actions

Professional misconduct occurs when an attorney violates ethical rules, which can lead to disciplinary action by the OCDC. If the OCDC determines that the advertising is misleading under Rule 4-7.1, potential consequences include:

  • Formal reprimands.
  • Suspension of the attorney’s license.
  • In severe cases, disbarment.

The specific outcome would depend on the severity of the violation and whether it is deemed intentional or negligent. The OCDC’s process involves investigating complaints, prosecuting cases where misconduct poses a threat to the public, and maintaining disciplinary records (Home - Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel). Examples of misconduct include misleading advertising, as noted in resources for filing complaints (Complaints Against Lawyers - Your Missouri Lawyers).

An example of disciplinary action for misleading advertising in other jurisdictions, such as Virginia, illustrates the scrutiny applied to such issues, though Missouri-specific cases were not found in the search (Missouri Bar Rules for Attorney Advertising).

Missouri-Specific Considerations

While the analysis relies on Missouri Rules 4-7.1 and 4-7.2, state-specific ethics opinions were searched but did not yield direct guidance on advertising past results from a different firm. The Office of Legal Ethics Counsel provides informal advisory opinions, but no relevant opinions were found addressing this scenario (Legal Ethics Opinions). However, the general interpretation of Rule 4-7.1 supports the conclusion that omitting critical context can be misleading.

Commentary and Best Practices

The omission in the disclaimer is problematic because it risks misleading potential clients into believing the solo attorney can achieve similar results as when they were at a large law firm. This is particularly concerning given the resource differences, which could affect the attorney’s ability to prosecute complex cases leading to large settlements. Clients might have unrealistic expectations, potentially leading to dissatisfaction or complaints to the OCDC.

To avoid such issues, best practices include:

  • Explicitly stating on the website that cited cases were achieved while employed at a large law firm, e.g., "The results listed were achieved during my tenure at [Large Law Firm Name], where I had access to significant resources and support staff."
  • Including additional disclaimers that highlight the difference in practice context, ensuring transparency and compliance with ethical rules.

Lawyers have a duty to ensure advertising is not only truthful but also not misleading, as emphasized in Missouri’s Rules of Professional Conduct and related resources (Missouri Ethics Rules for Legal Advertising).

Conclusion

The disclaimer does not adequately attribute that the case results were obtained when the attorney was employed with the large firm, potentially violating Missouri Rule 4-7.1(a) by omitting a fact necessary to prevent the communication from being materially misleading, and possibly Rule 4-7.1(b) by creating unjustified expectations. The OCDC would likely consider this a potential ethics violation and professional misconduct if the advertising is found to be misleading, with possible disciplinary actions depending on the jurisdiction.

Table: Summary of Key Findings

 

Aspect
Finding
Disclaimer Content
Includes standard disclaimers but omits firm context for past results.
Potential Ethics Violation
Likely violates Missouri Rule 4-7.1(a) and possibly 4-7.1(b).
Professional Misconduct
Possible disciplinary action by OCDC if found misleading, depending on severity.
Best Practice
Disclose firm context explicitly to avoid misleading clients.

 

Key Citations