伦理意见249

澳博app的广告

规则7.1(a) permits truthful claims of lawyer specialization so long as they can be substantiated. Claims that a lawyer can help a client “when others cannot” are inherently incapable of substantiation and are prohibited by 规则7.1(a)(2)，如印刷广告中声称澳博app“可以帮助你”.”

适用的规则

• 规则7.1(a)(关于澳博app服务的来文)

调查

A practitioner has sent us draft advertising copy for the “yellow pages directory” and asks: “I would appreciate receiving a written opinion from the Ethics committee regarding the advertisement.”

The inquirer does not draw our attention to any particular portion of or statement in the advertisement. 这则广告似乎被设计成占据了半页纸. It features a stylized Statue of Liberty in the lower left corner and a picture of the practitioner in the upper right. 在广告的顶部, 显示类型, 广告上写着:“全国知名的移民澳博app也可以帮助你!广告继续用小字写着:

签证申请一旦被拒绝，可能永远被拒绝! 你需要一个移民法专家. [The practitioner] knows the system and the people, so he can help you when others can’t. In 28 years of practice, he and his associates have solved more than 2,150 immigration problems.

(这位从业者)在国际上名声大噪.N.S.! 并且学会了如何通过繁文缛节来加快申请速度. 简单的案例和困难的案例 . . . 他知道该向哪里求助.

快速、高效、经济地解决各类移民问题 . . .

在医生的照片下面写着一句话:“现在打电话给我, 我将免费与你电话讨论你的情况!” The ad states at the bottom “SE HABLA ESPANOL” and repeats this sentiment in the language and alphabets of three other countries. The ad also indicates that the practitioner has been “LICENSED SINCE 1963” and formerly was a government trial attorney.

讨论

The portion of the District of Columbia 职业行为准则 applicable to this inquiry is 规则7.第1(a)条规定:

(a) A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. 如果一种信息是虚假的或具有误导性的:

(1)包含对事实或法律的重大失实陈述, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; or

(2) contains an assertion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services that cannot be substantiated.

对本细则的有关评注指出:

[1] It is especially important that statements about a lawyer or the lawyer’s services be accurate, 因为许多公众对法律事务缺乏详细的了解. 某些广告，如描述赔偿金额的广告, 澳博app取得有利判决的记录, 或者那些包含客户背书的, 除非具备适当资格, have a capacity to mislead by creating an unjustified expectation that similar results can be obtained for others. Advertisements comparing the lawyer’s services with those of other lawyers are false or misleading if the claims made cannot be substantiated.

在确定有关广告是否违反规则7时.1(a), the primary test, therefore, is whether the advertisement, or any portion of it, is misleading.

The thrust of the instant ad is that the practitioner has become expert through experience in dealing with immigration law problems and that his expertise in dealing with the Immigration and Naturalization Service allows him to be “fast, 既高效又经济.“虽然在某些司法管辖区禁止这种特殊专业知识的主张, 哥伦比亚特区并没有禁止这样的言论. Indeed, the Court of Appeals, at the recommendation of the 酒吧, expressly rejected 规则7.美国澳博app协会职业行为示范规则第4条, 谁曾试图规范专业化的要求. 此外，规则7的评注中没有任何内容.1 suggests that the Court of Appeals intended to prevent statements claiming specialization or expertise in a particular area of the law. 相应的, we conclude that statements of expertise in immigration law in the advertisement before us are not to be deemed inherently misleading even though such statements are to some extent incapable of substantiation.

The specific claim of expertise made in the ad does not appear to be misleading in fact. 经验主张的基础在广告中披露, 即从业者和他的同事已经处理了2,I中的150个表述.N.S. 28年以上的事项. 按照规则7的要求.1(a)(2), 这种说法是可以证实的, 我们假设, 从业者会, 他必须这么做, 能够根据客户的要求提供证明文件.sup>1 因此, in the absence of a factual record suggesting that this practitioner’s claims of expertise are false or will be understood by the public to go beyond “what reasonably may be inferred from an evaluation” of this practitioner’s stated years of practice and the number of INS cases he has handled, 皮v. 澳博app注册和纪律委员会，110 S. Ct. 2281, 2288 (1990), we have no reason to believe that this particular ad is inherently or potentially misleading in its claim of expertise.

我们更关心另外两件事. 第一个, the statement that the practitioner “can help you when others can’t” is precisely the sort of comparative claim that is prohibited by Comment [1]sup>2 和规则7.1(a)(2)，因为它是无法证实的. 第二个, 从业者声称他“可以帮助你”也是误导, since there is no way that such a claim can be accurate in the abstract and the practitioner cannot know whether or not he can help any client until some facts are known about the client’s case.

拟议的广告是否在任何其他方面具有误导性, 本委员会无从知晓. 在这里, we have no facts—hypothetical or real—concerning consumers’ reactions to claims made in the ad, and we have no process by which we can ascertain whether the statements made in the advertisement are accurate or whether the public to which this advertisement is directed will be mislead in any material manner by the advertisement.sup>4 在没有具体证据证明消费者会被广告误导的情况下, 本委员会冒险作进一步的指导是愚蠢的. Cf., e.g.，伊巴涅斯v. 佛罗里达州商业和专业监管部…….S. ___,没有. 93-639，滑梯. 6月13日, 1994)(规范商业言论, state must demonstrate that its concerns about such speech are “real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree,“引用 Edenfield v. 神庙, 507 U.S. ___，滑倒. at 9).

调查没有. 90-9-38
通过:1994年7月19日

1. Similarly, 我们假设 that the practitioner’s claim to be “nationally known” can be documented.
2. “Advertisements comparing the lawyer’s services with those of other lawyers are false or misleading if the claims made cannot be substantiated.”
3. 在得出该广告违反规则7的结论时.1(a)(2) and is therefore prohibited, the Committee takes no position on whether 规则7.1(a)(2)的适用本身就是合宪的.
4. 根据澳博app协会的章程, 我们要根据假设的事实来裁决案件, 相应的, 本委员会没有调查事实的权力或程序. See Rule E-4 of the 规则 of the 法律道德 Committee of the District of Columbia 酒吧.