Download Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

For submission and review at the SCLA meeting
scheduled for August 31, 2005
CONCURRENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Submitted by: William C. Turner, Esq.
Chair, SCLA
Chair, Concurrent Review Subcommittee
Subcommittee members: Rob Bare, Dean Richard Morgan,
Patrice Perez
State Bar of Nevada
Study Committee on Lawyer
Advertising (SCLA)
William C. Turner, Esq., Chair
Hon. Nancy A. Becker, Nv. S.Ct. Chief Justice
Hon. James W. Hardesty, Nv. S.Ct. Justice
Edward M. Bernstein, Esq.
Steven M. Burris, Esq.
Hon. Michael A. Cherry, 8th Judicial District
Tracy A. Eglet, Esq.
Dominic P. Gentile, Esq.
Rew R. Goodenow, Esq., Board of Governors
Tracey L. Itts, Esq.
Bradley L. Kenny, Esq.
Tom McAffee, Professor, UNLV Law School
Terry McConnell, laymember
Richard J. Morgan, Dean, UNLV Law School
Richard W. Myers, Esq.
Peter Chase Neumann, Esq.
Patrice D. Perez, Esq.
Brian D. Sandoval, Nevada Attorney General
Bryan K. Scott, Esq.
Caryn Swobe, laymember
Reporter
Allen W. Kimbrough, Executive Director, CAE
Administrative Support:
Audrey Bath, Director of Bar Services
[email protected] 317-1401
Legal Support
Rob W. Bare, Bar Counsel
Staff Contact:
Paralegal Kristina Marzec, CLA
[email protected] 317-1426
 OVERVIEW
In 2004, the Office of Bar Counsel researched
the question of how other state bars address reviewing
attorney advertisements. 1
The results of its polling indicated the
mainstream approach, where there is any review
process, is an advisory committee.
Requisite approval before dissemination is not
the favored approach due to censorship and First
Amendment Constitutional concerns, as previously
discussed by the SCLA. More commonly lawyers who
fail to voluntarily comply with the recommendations of
the reviewing entity would then be referred to Bar
Counsel for processing as with any other complaint.
To illustrate comparisons, consider the following
seven (7) states:
o California. No screening.
There is no advisory committee or Bar staff available to
“pre-view” ads given their resources. All regulatory
review is after the fact, but lawyers are given a chance
to take remedial action without receiving disciplinary
sanctions.
o Florida. Mandatory review.
Florida has a requirement that all ads that are not
exempt (tombstone-type ads) be filed either prior to or
at the time they are first disseminated. The review is
performed by the attorneys of the Bar's Ethics &
Advertising Department. The department is separate
from Lawyer Regulation, which handles bar grievances,
See also SCLA Handbook 1, Tab Model Rule 7.2, for a hard copy of
rules in alphabetical order.
1.
all 50 states’ comparable
so disciplinary counsel do not perform the review in Florida. The opinion in each
advertising file is subject to review by the Florida Bar Standing Committee on
Advertising and the bar's board of governors upon timely request of the person who filed
the advertisement.
o Indiana. No screening, but is under discussion.
Indiana Bar Counsel advised there is a movement afoot from a respondent's counsel to
move the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt advertising prescreening. The argument is
that it should be done upon payment of a substantial enough fee that it is a least
revenue neutral, and perhaps even a profit center to the Bar. Indiana Bar Counsel
notes his opinion that this is the rendering of legal advice and Bar Counsel shouldn’t be
in the business of being legal counsel to the members of the bar.
o Kentucky. Pre-screening required by Bar Counsel.
KY requires that ads be submitted thirty (30) days before dissemination unless they are
very simple identification type ads. Kentucky Bar Counsel commented:
Because of constitutional issues the Attorneys Advertising Commission (all volunteers)
takes the position this is discretionary but the rule says "shall"(SCR 3.130-7.05(2).) The
AAC has now proposed regulations (which the OBC wrote largely based on rules from
other states) that are pretty clearly designed to eliminate false and deceptive ads. The
Bar is receiving threats of a lawsuit, not necessarily about the new regulations of the
Commission but the Supreme Court rule which has now been in effect over 10 years.
The advertisers want to talk about a temporary injunction, which is interesting since I do
not see how you prove immediate and irreparable harm when the rule has been in effect
and followed for 10 years. The bottom line is that with the expansion of the Commission
and the potential of new guidelines in the regulations for the commission, the
advertisers are now waking up to the fact that they might get into some disciplinary
problems and they are now complaining about the prior approval. If our rules are
changed I believe the Court will go to a simultaneous submission, not eliminate it
completely.
o Maryland. Some pre-screening by Bar.
Maryland, by statute, requires targeted mail for personal injury and those accused of
criminal behavior to file their letter and list of addresses with Bar Counsel, who views
the letters for truthfulness and the letters must have "this is an advertisement" at the top
and bottom of the letter and on the envelope.
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Page 2
o New Mexico.
against)
Mandatory review (a cautionary tale for potential pitfalls to guard
New Mexico Bar Counsel comments: For more than ten years, New Mexico had a
volunteer committee that reviewed ads. At the New Mexico Bar’s suggestion, the Court
(in 2004) abolished [the Committee]. The longer the Committee continued, the more
problems there were with consistency--tracking phrases that had been approved and
disapproved. The committee also became convinced that many lawyers just did not
submit their ads-particularly yellow pages. We also found that when we filed formal
charges on advertising we became embroiled in questions about the Committee’s
compliance with its own procedures and constitutional questions. Our Court kept the
substantive rules and announced to NM lawyers that they will be addressed like all
other rule violations in the future.
o Wisconsin. Mandatory review.
Wisconsin SCR 20:7.3(b) requires copies of direct mail ads (but not other types of
advertising) to be filed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation within five days of
dissemination. Content review is usually undertaken by investigative staff.
 The “Texas Model” of concurrent review.
Texas has an Advertising and Review Committee (See Texas Disciplinary Rule
7.07, Attachment 1). Much like Kentucky, staff for the Committee in Texas advises that
this isn’t really considered mandatory- they don’t go after people who don’t submit.
However, under the Rule the submission can be before or contemporaneously to the
first dissemination of the ad. If the applicant wants an advisory opinion in writing, they
must submit within 30 days.
This Committee consists of volunteers, and there is a small staff department in
the Bar itself which assists the Committee somewhat like Nevada’s Fee Dispute
Coordinator. This Committee does however have significant authority to review all ads
which are considered “standard.” Staff only forward to the Committee those ads
deemed complicated or presenting compelling legal issues.
It was the Texas model which was most discussed at our last SCLA meeting and
favored by the State Bar for the substance of the rule itself (if not the actual application
described by Texas), and will therefore be discussed in detail below as the “concurrent
review model.” A sample rule is attached solely as a basis for reference and
discussion. (Attachment 2.)
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Page 3

Who does the review?
Either a Committee or the Office of Bar Counsel. The sample rule provides for the
creation of an Advertising Review Committee which would be appointed by and report
to the Board of Governors (Board). The Committee would then create by-laws and rules
of procedure subject to ratification by the Board of Governors (with bar counsel’s
assistance if desired). I believe a State Bar staff coordinator would be appropriate,
similar to the way Fee Dispute Arbitration is structured procedurally. Alternatively, an
additional staff member with the primary function of attorney advertising could be added
directly to the Office of Bar Counsel and the process handled in house.

Review process
The sample rule assumes a Committee is created, but could be easily amended to
substitute the model with the Office of Bar Counsel handling review in house. The basic
process is the same.
The sample is structured such that it covers the filing requirements for public media
advertisements and written solicitations. Subsection 2 deals with those written
solicitations sent by a lawyer to one or more specified prospective clients. Subsection 3
deals with advertisements in the public media. Each provision allows the Bar to charge
a fee for reviewing submitted materials, but requires that fee be set solely to defray the
expenses of enforcing those provisions.
Copies of non-exempt written solicitations or advertisements in the public media
must be provided to the Committee either in advance or concurrent with dissemination,
together with the required fee. The Committee will forward to Bar Counsel any
reviewed products it receives already in dissemination in the public or written media that
violate SCRs 195-199.
Note that sample subsections 2 and 3 do not require that a lawyer submit a copy of
each and every written solicitation letter sent in mass mailings. A representative sample
letter and envelope are sufficient.
Sample subsection 4 provides a mechanism for optional advanced ad approval.
This process is intended as a service to those lawyers who may want to resolve any
possible doubts before committing expenditures and running advertisements. Often
times pulling a running advertisement can create significant monetary loss. Also
problematic is after the fact discovery of a non-compliant advertisement in print
mediums in common circulation that only produce new editions on a limited basis, the
best example being the yellow pages of the phone book.
This would be a purely optional member service. It is not contemplated that a lawyer
would ever be required to obtain advance clearance from the Bar or Committee.
Another benefit of the advance review provision as used in Texas and in the sample is
that a finding of compliance is binding in favor of the submitting lawyer as long as the
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Page 4
lawyer’s submission to the Committee was true and not misleading. A positive
compliance opinion would be an absolute bar to later discipline proceedings as to the
specific approved ad (provided the ad is not altered from the approved version, of
course).
To prevent an unrealistic onslaught of “last minute” pre-approval requests, the
proposed language does not guarantee a response within less than thirty (30) days of
submission. However, that does not mean that such requests would not be
accommodated where possible.
Consistent with the effort to protect the first amendment rights of lawyers while
balancing (1) the right of the public to be free from misleading and false advertising and
(2) the interests of the bench and bar in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession,
subsection 5 exempts certain types of advertisements and written solicitations prepared
for the purpose of seeking paid professional employment from filing requirements under
this rule.
For the most part, the types of exempted advertising set forth in sample
subsection 5(a)-(e) are objective and less likely to result in false, misleading or
fraudulent content. Similarly, the types of exempted written solicitations listed in 5(f)-(h)
are of the type least likely to create misconceptions and result in harm to the public.
The fact that a particular advertisement/solicitation is exempted from mandatory filing
does not in any way obviate the requirement that its content be compliant with the
relevant rules of professional conduct.
Subsection 6 empowers the Committee to seek information from a lawyer to
substantiate statements or representations made or implied in
advertisements/solicitations that are required to be filed under this rule. Note that this
subsection can arguably be eliminated if the recommendation elects to have the review
done in-house by Bar Counsel rather than an outside Committee.
This model appears to balance first amendment rights and public policy
concerns. While submission of certain types of ads and solicitation is required,
compliance and enforcement remain solely the purview of the disciplinary boards and
the Court. This is simply a way to assist in enforcing the rules uniformly, as well as
codifying existing policy to offer “pre-approval” of advertisements for our members. As
such, due process is not changed by its implementation.
Note that additional study is needed from a fiscal impact standpoint, and that
information will vary depending on the model chosen (Committee versus in-house). If
the SCLA approves the idea of concurrent screening in principle, Bar Counsel has
offered to assist with putting together fiscal impact scenarios for inclusion in the SCLAs
final recommendations.
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Page 5
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
(Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct, (1989) reprinted in Tex. Govt Code Ann., tit. 2,
subtit. G, app. (Vernon Supp. 1995)(State Bar Rules art X [[section]]9))
VII INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES
7.07 Filing Requirements for Public Advertisements and Written Solicitations
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this Rule, a lawyer shall file
with the Advertising Review Committee of the State Bar of Texas,
either before or concurrently with the mailing or sending of a written
solicitation communication:
(1) a copy of the written solicitation communication being
sent or to be sent to one or more prospective clients for
the purpose of obtaining professional employment,
together with a representative sample of the envelopes
in which the communications are enclosed; and
(2) a check or money order payable to the State Bar of
Texas for the fee set by the Board of Directors. Such fee
shall be for the sole purpose of defraying the expense of
enforcing the rules related to such solicitations.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this Rule, a lawyer shall file
with the Advertising Review Committee of the State Bar of Texas,
either before or concurrently with the first dissemination of an
advertisement in the public media, a copy of each of the lawyer’s
advertisements in the public media. The filing shall include:
(1) a copy of the advertisement in the form in which it
appears or is or will be disseminated, such as a
videotape, an audiotape, a print copy, or a photograph of
outdoor advertising;
(2) a production script of the advertisement setting forth
all words used and describing in detail the actions,
events, scenes, and background sounds used in such
advertisement together with a listing of the names and
addresses of persons portrayed or heard to speak, if the
advertisement is in or will be in a form in which the
advertised message is not fully revealed by a print copy
or photograph;
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 1
Page 1
(3) a statement of when and where the advertisement
has been, is, or will be used; and
(4) a check or money order payable to the State Bar of
Texas for the fee set by the Board of Directors. Such fee
shall be for the sole purpose of defraying the expense of
enforcing the rules related to such advertisements.
(c) A lawyer who desires to secure an advance advisory opinion
concerning compliance of a contemplated written solicitation
communication or advertisement may submit to the Advertising
Review Committee, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of
first dissemination, the material specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this
Rule, including the required fee; provided however, it shall not be
necessary to submit a videotape if the videotape has not then been
prepared and the production script submitted reflects in detail and
accurately the actions, events, scenes, and background sounds that
will be depicted or contained on such videotapes, when prepared, as
well as the narrative transcript of the verbal and printed portions of
such advertisement. An advisory opinion of the Advertising Review
Committee of noncompliance is not binding in a disciplinary
proceeding or disciplinary action but a finding of compliance is binding
in favor of the submitting lawyer if the representations, statements,
materials, facts and written assurances received in connection
therewith are true and are not misleading. The finding constitutes
admissible evidence if offered by a party.
(d) The filing requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) do not extend to
any of the following materials:
(1) an advertisement in the public media that contains
only part or all of the following information, provided the
information is not false or misleading:
(i) the name of the lawyer or firm and
lawyers associated with the firm, with office
addresses, telephone numbers, office and
telephone service hours, telecopier
numbers, and a designation of the
profession such as attorney , lawyer , law
office , or firm;
(ii) the fields of law in which the lawyer or
firm advertises specialization and the
statements required by Rule 7.04 (a)
through (c);
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 1
Page 2
(iii) the date of admission of the lawyer or
lawyers to the State Bar of Texas, to
particular federal courts, and to the bars of
other jurisdictions;
(iv) technical and professional licenses
granted by this state and other recognized
licensing authorities;
(v) foreign language ability;
(vi) fields of law in which one or more
lawyers are certified or designated,
provided the statement of this information
is in compliance with Rule 7.02(a) through
(c);
(vii) identification of prepaid or group legal
service plans in which the lawyer
participates;
(viii) the acceptance or nonacceptance of
credit cards;
(ix) any fee for initial consultation and fee
schedule;
(x) that the lawyer or firm is a sponsor of a
charitable, civic, or community program or
event, or is a sponsor of a public service
announcement;
(xi) any disclosure or statement required by
these rules; and
(xii) any other information specified from
time to time in orders promulgated by the
Supreme Court of Texas;
(2) an advertisement in the public media that:
(i) identifies one or more lawyers or a firm
as a contributor to a specified charity or as
a sponsor of a specified charitable,
community, or public interest program,
activity, or event; and
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 1
Page 3
(ii) contains no information about the
lawyers or firm other than names of the
lawyers or firm or both, location of the law
offices, and the fact of the sponsorship or
contribution;
(3) a listing or entry in a regularly published law list;
(4) an announcement card stating new or changed
associations, new offices, or similar changes relating to a
lawyer or firm, or a tombstone professional card;
(5) a newsletter mailed only to:
(i) existing or former clients;
(ii) other lawyers or professionals; and
(iii) members of a nonprofit organization
that meets the following conditions: the
primary purposes of the organization do not
include the rendition of legal services; the
recommending, furnishing, paying for, or
educating persons regarding legal services
is incidental and reasonably related to the
primary purposes of the organization; the
organization does not derive a financial
benefit from the rendition of legal services
by a lawyer; and the person for whom the
legal services are rendered, and not the
organization, is recognized as the client of
the lawyer who is recommended, furnished,
or paid by the organization;
(6) a written solicitation communication that is not
motivated by or concerned with a particular past
occurrence or event or a particular series of past
occurrences or events, and also is not motivated by or
concerned with the prospective clients specific existing
legal problem of which the lawyer is aware;
(7) a written solicitation communication if the lawyers use
of the communication to secure professional employment
was not significantly motivated by a desire for, or by the
possibility of obtaining, pecuniary gain; or
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 1
Page 4
(8) a written solicitation communication that is requested
by the prospective client.
(e) If requested by the Advertising Review Committee, a lawyer shall
promptly submit information to substantiate statements or
representations made or implied in any advertisement in the public
media and/or written solicitation.
Comment:
1. Rule 7.07 covers the filing requirements for public media
advertisements (see Rule 7.04) and written solicitations (see Rule
7.05). Rule 7.07(a) deals with those written solicitations sent by a
lawyer to one or more specified prospective clients. Rule 7.07(b) deals
with advertisements in the public media. Each provision allows the Bar
to charge a fee for reviewing submitted materials, but requires that fee
be set solely to defray the expenses of enforcing those provisions.
2. Copies of non-exempt written solicitations or advertisements in the
public media must be provided to the Review Committee of the State
Bar of Texas either in advance or concurrently with dissemination,
together with the fee required by the State Bar of Texas Board of
Directors. Presumably, the Review Committee will report to the
appropriate grievance committee any lawyer whom it finds from the
reviewed products has disseminated an advertisement in the public
media or written solicitation that violates Rules 7.02, 7.03, 7.04, or
7.05, or, at a minimum, any lawyer whose violation raises a substantial
question as to that lawyers honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer in other respects. See Rule 8.03(a).
3. Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not require that a lawyer submit a copy of
each and every written solicitation letter a lawyer sends. If the same
form letter is sent to several people, only a representative sample of
each form letter, along with a representative sample of the envelopes
used to mail the letters, need be filed.
4. A lawyer wishing to do so may secure an advisory opinion from the
Review Committee concerning any proposed advertisement in the
public media or any written solicitation in advance of its first use or
mailing by complying with Rule 7.07(c). This procedure is intended as
a service to those lawyers who want to resolve any possible doubts
about their proposed advertisements or written solicitations
compliance with these Rules before utilizing them. Its use is purely
optional. No lawyer is required to obtain advance clearance of any
advertisement or written solicitation communication from the State Bar.
Although a finding of noncompliance by the Review Committee is not
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 1
Page 5
binding in a disciplinary proceeding, a finding of compliance is binding
in favor of the submitting lawyer, as long as the lawyers presentation
to the Review Committee in connection with that advisory opinion is
true and not misleading.
5. Under its Internal Rules and Operating Procedures, the Lawyer
Advertising and Solicitation Review Committee is to complete its
evaluations no later than 25 days after the date of receipt of a filing.
The only way that the Committee can extend that review period is to:
(1) determine that there is reasonable doubt whether the
advertisement or written solicitation communication complies with
these Rules; (2) conclude that further examination is warranted but
cannot be completed within the 25 day period; and (3) advise the
lawyer of those determinations in writing within that 25 day period. The
Committees Internal Rules and Operating Procedures also provide
that a failure to send such a communication to the lawyer within the 25
day period constitutes approval of the advertisement or written
solicitation communication. Consequently, if an attorney submits an
advertisement in the public media or written solicitation communication
to the Committee for advance approval not less than 30 days prior to
the date of first dissemination as required by these Rules, the attorney
will receive an assessment of that advertisement or communication
before the date of its first intended use.
6. Consistent with the effort to protect the first amendment rights of
lawyers while ensuring the right of the public to be free from
misleading advertising and the right of the Texas legal profession to
maintain its integrity, paragraph (d) exempts certain types of
advertisements and written solicitations prepared for the purpose of
seeking paid professional employment from the filing requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b). Those types of communications need not be
filed at all if they were not prepared to secure paid professional
employment.
7. For the most part, the types of exempted advertising listed in subparagraphs (d)(1)-(5) are objective and less likely to result in false,
misleading or fraudulent content. Similarly the types of exempted
written solicitations listed in sub-paragraphs (d)(6) - (8) are those
found least likely to result in harm to the public. See Rule 7.05(e), and
comment 5 to Rule 7.05. The fact that a particular advertisement or
written solicitation made by a lawyer is exempted from the filing
requirements of this Rule does not exempt a lawyer from the other
applicable obligations of these Rules. See generally Rules 7.01
through 7.06.
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 1
Page 6
8. Paragraph (e) does not empower the Advertising Review
Committee to seek information from a lawyer to substantiate
statements or representations made or implied in advertisements or
written communications that do not seek to obtain paid professional
employment for that lawyer.
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 1
Page 7
SAMPLE RULE
(INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES: Review Committee: Filing
Requirements)
Advertising Review Committee; Filing Requirements for Public
Advertisements and Written Solicitation
1. Advertising Review Committee. The Advertising Review Committee of the State Bar
of Nevada is hereby established. The Committee shall consist of at least 5 members of
the state bar of Nevada, appointed by the board of governors, with additional members
at the board’s discretion. The Committee shall promulgate by-laws and rules of
procedure consistent with applicable Supreme Court Rules to be approved by the board
of governors.
2. Filing Requirements. Except as provided in subsection 5 of this Rule, a lawyer shall
file with the Advertising Review Committee of the state bar of Nevada, either before or
concurrently with the mailing or sending of a written solicitation communication:
(a) a copy of the written solicitation communicating being sent or to be sent to
one or more prospective clients for the purpose of obtaining professional employment,
together with a representative sample of the envelopes in which the communications
are enclosed: and
(b) a check or money order payable to the State Bar of Nevada for a fee set by
the Board of Governors. Such fee shall be for the sole purpose of defraying the
expense of enforcing the rules related to such solicitations.
3. Except as provided in subsection 5 of this Rule, a lawyer shall file with the
Advertising Review Committee of the State Bar of Nevada, either before or concurrently
with the first dissemination of an advertisement in the public media, a copy of each of
the lawyers advertisements in the public media. The filing shall include:
(a) a copy of the advertisement in the form in which it appears or is or will be
disseminated, such as a videotape, an audiotape, a print copy, or a photograph of
outdoor advertising;
(b) a production script of the advertisement setting forth all words used and
describing in detail the actions, events, scenes, and background sounds used in such
advertisement together with a listing of the names and addresses of persons portrayed
or heard to speak, if the advertisement is in or will be in a form in which the advertised
message is not fully revealed by a print copy or photograph;
(c) a statement of when and where the advertisement has been, is, or will be
used; and
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 2
Page 1
(d) a check or money order payable to the State Bar of Nevada for the fee set by
the Board of Governors. Such fee shall be for the sole purpose of defraying the
expense of enforcing the rules related to such advertisements.
4. A lawyer who desires to secure an advance advisory opinion concerning compliance
of a contemplated written solicitation communication or advertisement may submit to
the Advertising Review Committee, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of first
dissemination, the material specified in subsections 2 or 3 of this Rule, including the
required fee; provided however, it shall not be necessary to submit a videotape if the
videotape has not then been prepared and the production script submitted reflects in
detail and accurately the actions, events, scenes, and background sounds that will be
depicted or contained on such videotapes, when prepared, as well as the narrative
transcript of the verbal and printed portions of such advertisement. An advisory opinion
of the Advertising Review Committee of noncompliance is not binding in a disciplinary
proceeding or disciplinary action but a finding of compliance is binding in favor of the
submitting lawyer if the representations, statements, materials, facts and written
assurances received in connection therewith are true and are not misleading. The
finding constitutes admissible evidence if offered by a party.
5. The filing requirements of subsections 2 and 3 do not extend to any of the following
materials:
(a) an advertisement in the public media that contains only part or all of the
following information, provided the information is not false or misleading:
(i) the name of the lawyer or firm and lawyers associated with the firm,
with office addresses, telephone numbers, office and telephone service hours,
telecopier numbers, and a designation of the profession such as attorney, lawyer, law
office, or firm;
(ii) the fields of law in which the lawyer or firm advertises specialization
and the statements required by Rules 196 and 198;
(iii) the date of admission of the lawyer or lawyers to the State Bar of
Nevada, to particular federal courts, and to the bars of other jurisdictions;
(iv) technical and professional licenses granted by this state and other
recognized licensing authorities;
(v) foreign language ability;
(vi) fields of law in which one or more lawyers are certified provided the
statement of this information is in compliance with Rules 196 and 198;
(vii) identification of prepaid or group legal service plans in which the
lawyer participates;
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 2
Page 2
(viii) the acceptance of nonacceptance of credit cards;
(ix) any fee for initial consultation and fee schedule;
(x) that the lawyer or firm is a sponsor of a charitable, civic, or community
program or event, or is a sponsor of a public service announcement;
(xi) any disclosure or statement required by these rules; and
(xii) any other information specified from time to time in orders
promulgated by the Supreme Court of Nevada;
(b) an advertisement in the public media that:
(i) identifies one or more lawyers or a firm as a contributor to a specified
charity or as a sponsor of a specified charitable, community, or public interest program,
activity, or event: and
(ii) contains no information about the lawyers or firm other than names of
the lawyers or firm or both, location of the law offices, and the fact of the sponsorship or
contribution;
(c) a listing or entry in a regularly published law list;
(d) an announcement card stating new or changed associations, new offices, or
similar changes to a lawyer or firm, or a tombstone professional card;
(e) a newsletter mailed only to:
(i) existing or former clients;
(ii) other lawyers or professionals; and
(iii) members of a nonprofit organization that meets the following
conditions: the primary purposes of the organization do not include the rendition of
legal services; the recommending, furnishing, paying for, or educating persons
regarding legal services is incidental and reasonably related to the primary purposes of
the organization; the organization does not derive a financial benefit from the rendition
of legal services by a lawyer; and the person for whom the legal services are rendered,
and not the organization, is recognized as the client of the lawyer who is recommended,
furnished, or paid by the organization;
(f) a written solicitation communication that is not motivated by or concerned with
a particular past occurrence or event or a particular series of past occurrences or
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 2
Page 3
events, and also is not motivated by or concerned with the prospective clients specific
existing legal problem of which the lawyer is aware;
(g) a written solicitation communication if the lawyers use of the communication
to secure professional employment was not significantly motivated by a desire for, or by
the possibility of obtaining, pecuniary gain; or
(h) a written solicitation communication that is requested by the prospective
client.
6. If requested by the Advertising Review Committee, a lawyer shall promptly submit
information to substantiate statements or representations made or implied in any
advertisement in the public media and/or written solicitation.
Concurrent Review Draft Report
Attachment 2
Page 4