Law Office of Michael G. O'Neill
Lawyer Advertising
New York Ethics Rules require that all lawyer advertising be identified as such. This is supposed to be on the front page of any lawyer's web site. I guess this is like the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packages: you're required to be told something you already know.
But what is not so obvious is what lawyers are allowed to say and not allowed to say. The short version is that lawyers are not permitted to say anything that is not true. It's not enough to believe that what you say is true, there has to be an independant and objective means of establishing that it is true.
Snapple claims that its drinks are made from the best stuff on earth. I don't believe that to be true. I don't know if Snapple even believes that to be true, but Snapple is allowed to make this claim because it's advertising, and the public is expected to take advertisements with a grain of salt.
Lawyers are not allowed to make claims like Snapple. This is extremely frustrating to some, because the whole point of advertising is to make the claim that you're the best, isn't it? I don't mind this rule. I think it's a sound rule. Should a lawyer two years out of law school be allowed to advertise that he's the best personal injury lawyer in the City of New York? The way the rules work, lawyer A can say he has two years of experience, and lawyer B can say that she has 20 years of experience, and the public can draw its own conclusions. Even that is less than satisfactory, however, because 20 years of experience only means the lawyer got his or her law license in 1998. It says nothing about what the lawyer has done in those 20 years. The truth of the matter is that it is very difficult to know whether a particular lawyer is any good. So the rules let the lawyers put out the facts and leave it up to the public to decide.
Interestingly, the rules do not require lawyers to reveal their experience, where they went to law school, what grades they got, where they worked before, etc. Sometimes what is not said is more important than what is said.
Not all lawyers follow the rules. (Big surpise, right?) Google "best New York discrimination lawyers" and you'll get several firms that make this forbidden claim. These lawyers are not only breaking the rules, but they're making a completely ridiculous claim. There is no "best" discrimination lawyer in New York City. Don't let anyone insult your intelligence.
Here is an advertising rule that is probably the most broken rule in the book:
Why do I say this is the most broken rule in the book? Because I do not believe that there is a single attorney rating service that meets the criteria in the rule, but you see "Super Lawyer" and "AV rating" boasts all over the place. These rating services, which are borderline scams in my opinion, are a pet peeve of mine and are a whole subject to be dealt with elsewhere. In fairness, I should say that Avvo might actually satisfy the rule. I don't think the Avvo rating means much, because its criteria are a little screwy in my opinion and can easily be manipulated, but it doesn't make outrageous claims about its significance. In fact, here is what Avvo says about its rating:
Hats off to Avvo for acknowledging the limitations of its ratings. By the way, my Avvo rating is 7.5, which I am insulted by to be honest, especially when I see who some of the attorneys are with a 10 rating. So I'm not tooting Avvo's horn because of how it rates me. I just think Avvo makes an effort to be objective, even if I don't always agree with it.
But what is not so obvious is what lawyers are allowed to say and not allowed to say. The short version is that lawyers are not permitted to say anything that is not true. It's not enough to believe that what you say is true, there has to be an independant and objective means of establishing that it is true.
Snapple claims that its drinks are made from the best stuff on earth. I don't believe that to be true. I don't know if Snapple even believes that to be true, but Snapple is allowed to make this claim because it's advertising, and the public is expected to take advertisements with a grain of salt.
Lawyers are not allowed to make claims like Snapple. This is extremely frustrating to some, because the whole point of advertising is to make the claim that you're the best, isn't it? I don't mind this rule. I think it's a sound rule. Should a lawyer two years out of law school be allowed to advertise that he's the best personal injury lawyer in the City of New York? The way the rules work, lawyer A can say he has two years of experience, and lawyer B can say that she has 20 years of experience, and the public can draw its own conclusions. Even that is less than satisfactory, however, because 20 years of experience only means the lawyer got his or her law license in 1998. It says nothing about what the lawyer has done in those 20 years. The truth of the matter is that it is very difficult to know whether a particular lawyer is any good. So the rules let the lawyers put out the facts and leave it up to the public to decide.
Interestingly, the rules do not require lawyers to reveal their experience, where they went to law school, what grades they got, where they worked before, etc. Sometimes what is not said is more important than what is said.
Not all lawyers follow the rules. (Big surpise, right?) Google "best New York discrimination lawyers" and you'll get several firms that make this forbidden claim. These lawyers are not only breaking the rules, but they're making a completely ridiculous claim. There is no "best" discrimination lawyer in New York City. Don't let anyone insult your intelligence.
Here is an advertising rule that is probably the most broken rule in the book:
"An advertisement may include information regarding bona fide professional ratings by referring to the rating service and how it has rated the lawyer, provided that the advertisement contains the “past results” disclaimer as required under paragraphs (d) and (e). However, a rating is not “bona fide” unless it is unbiased and nondiscriminatory. Thus, it must evaluate lawyers based on objective criteria or legitimate peer review in a manner unbiased by the rating service’s economic interests (such as payment to the rating service by the rated lawyer) and not subject to improper influence by lawyers who are being evaluated. Further, the rating service must fairly consider all lawyers within the pool of those who are purported to be covered. For example, a rating service that purports to evaluate all lawyers practicing in a particular geographic area or in a particular area of practice or of a particular age must apply its criteria to all lawyers within that geographic area, practice area, or age group."
Why do I say this is the most broken rule in the book? Because I do not believe that there is a single attorney rating service that meets the criteria in the rule, but you see "Super Lawyer" and "AV rating" boasts all over the place. These rating services, which are borderline scams in my opinion, are a pet peeve of mine and are a whole subject to be dealt with elsewhere. In fairness, I should say that Avvo might actually satisfy the rule. I don't think the Avvo rating means much, because its criteria are a little screwy in my opinion and can easily be manipulated, but it doesn't make outrageous claims about its significance. In fact, here is what Avvo says about its rating:
"Keep in mind that these ratings speak to a lawyer’s background, but do not evaluate their knowledge of the law, past performance on individual cases, personality, or communication skills. These are elements that the Avvo Rating cannot evaluate."
Hats off to Avvo for acknowledging the limitations of its ratings. By the way, my Avvo rating is 7.5, which I am insulted by to be honest, especially when I see who some of the attorneys are with a 10 rating. So I'm not tooting Avvo's horn because of how it rates me. I just think Avvo makes an effort to be objective, even if I don't always agree with it.