伦理意见249

靠谱的滚球平台的广告

规则7.1(a)允许靠谱的滚球平台专业知识的真实主张，只要这些主张能够得到证实. 声称“当其他人不能”的时候，靠谱的滚球平台可以帮助客户，这种说法本质上是无法证实的，是第七条规则所禁止的.1(a)(2), as is a claim in a print advertisement that a lawyer “can help YOU.”

适用的规则

• 规则7.1(a) (Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services)

调查

一位从业者给我们寄来了“黄页目录”的广告文案草稿，并问道:“我希望能收到道德委员会关于广告的书面意见.”

询问者并未提请我们注意广告中任何特定的部分或陈述. The ad appears designed to fill half a page. 它的左下角是一尊风格化的自由女神像，右上方是这位修炼者的照片. 在广告的顶部, 显示类型, the ad states: “Nationally known IMMIGRATION attorney Can Help YOU Too!” The ad continues in smaller type:

A visa application once denied, may be denied forever! You need an expert in immigration law. (从业者)了解系统和人，所以他可以在别人不能的时候帮助你. 在28年的执业生涯中，他和他的同事解决了超过2150个移民问题.

[The practitioner] has made his reputation at the I.N.S.! And has learned how to cut through red tape to speed your application. 简单的案例和困难的案例 . . . 他知道该向哪里求助.

Fast, efficient, economical solutions to all types of immigration problems . . .

Under the practitioner’s picture there is a statement “Call me now, I’ll discuss your case with you by phone for FREE!广告底部写着“SE HABLA ESPANOL”，并用另外三个国家的语言和字母重复了这一情感. 该广告还指出，执业者“自1963年以来获得许可”，以前是政府审判靠谱的滚球平台.

讨论

适用于本次调查的哥伦比亚特区职业行为规则的部分是规则7.第1(a)条规定:

(a)靠谱的滚球平台不得就其本人或靠谱的滚球平台的服务作出虚假或误导性的通知. A communication is false or misleading if it:

(1) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; or

(二)对靠谱的滚球平台或者靠谱的滚球平台提供的服务提出不能证实的主张的.

Relevant commentary to this Rule states:

[1]尤其重要的是，关于靠谱的滚球平台或靠谱的滚球平台服务的陈述必须准确, since many members of the public lack detailed knowledge of legal matters. Certain advertisements such as those that describe the amount of a damage award, the lawyer’s record in obtaining favorable verdicts, or those containing client endorsements, 除非具备适当资格, 有能力通过制造一种不合理的期望来误导他人，认为其他人也能获得类似的结果. 将靠谱的滚球平台的服务与其他靠谱的滚球平台的服务进行比较的广告，其主张不能得到证实的，是虚假的或者具有误导性的.

In determining whether the advertisement in question violates 规则7.因此，主要检验标准是该广告或其任何部分是否具有误导性.

这则即时广告的主旨是，从业人员通过处理移民法问题的经验已经成为专家，他在处理移民和归化局方面的专业知识使他能够“快速”, 既高效又经济.” While such claims of special expertise are prohibited in some jurisdictions, the District of Columbia does not prohibit such statements. 事实上，上诉法院在靠谱的滚球平台公会的建议下，明确否决了规则7.4 of the ABA Model 职业行为准则, which had attempted to regulate claims of specialization. Moreover, nothing in the commentary to 规则7.第1条建议，上诉法院打算阻止声称在某一法律领域具有专门性或专门知识的陈述. 相应的, 我们的结论是，我们面前的广告中关于移民法专业知识的陈述不应被视为本质上具有误导性，即使这些陈述在某种程度上无法证实.

事实上，广告中对专业知识的具体主张似乎并不具有误导性. The basis of the claim of experience is disclosed in the ad, namely that the practitioner and his associates have handled 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), this claim is capable of substantiation and, 我们假设, 从业者会, 他必须这么做, be able to substantiate this claim with documentation upon request by a client.sup>1 因此, 在没有事实记录表明该从业人员所声称的专业知识是虚假的，或者公众将理解为超出了对该从业人员所陈述的从业年限和他所处理的移民归化局案件数量的“合理评估”的情况下, 皮v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm’n, 110 S. Ct. 2281, 2288 (1990), 我们没有理由相信这个特定的广告在其声称的专业知识中具有固有的或潜在的误导性.

We have more concern with two other matters. 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), since it is incapable of substantiation. 第二个, practitioner’s claim that he “can help YOU” is also misleading, 因为这样的要求在抽象上是不可能准确的，而且在了解客户案件的一些事实之前，从业者无法知道他是否可以帮助任何客户.

Whether the proposed advertisement is misleading in any other way, this Committee has no way of knowing. 在这里, 我们没有事实——假设的或真实的——关于消费者对广告中的说法的反应, 我们没有办法确定广告中的陈述是否准确，或者广告所针对的公众是否会被广告以任何实质性的方式误导.sup>4 In the absence of specific proof that consumers would be mislead by the advertisement, it would be folly for this Committee to venture further guidance. Cf., e.g.，伊巴涅斯v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation…….S. ___,没有. 93-639，滑梯. 6月13日, 1994) (to regulate commercial speech, 国家必须证明其对这类言论的担忧是“真实的”，而且其限制实际上会在很大程度上减轻这些担忧,“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. 类似地，我们假设从业者声称的“全国知名”可以被记录下来.
2. “将靠谱的滚球平台的服务与其他靠谱的滚球平台的服务进行比较的广告，如果所提出的要求不能得到证实，则是虚假的或具有误导性的.”
3. In reaching the conclusion that this advertisement violates 规则7.第1(a)(2)条，因此被禁止，委员会对第7条是否.1(a)(2) is itself constitutional as so applied.
4. Under this Committee’s charter from the 酒吧, we are to decide cases on hypothetical facts and, 相应的, this Committee has no factfinding authority or procedures. 参见哥伦比亚特区靠谱的滚球平台协会法律道德委员会规则E-4条.