ZAUDERER V. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
471 U.S. 626 (1985)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over attorney advertising.
FACTS: D placed an ad in 36 newspapers to represent women who suffered injuries resulting
from their use of Dalkon Shields. The ad attracted over 200 inquiries and lawsuits were
initiated on behalf of 106 women from the ads. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a
complaint against D in violation of 2-101(B)(15) which provides that any advertisement that
mentions contingent fee rates must disclose whether percentages are computer before or after
deduction of court costs and expenses and that the ad failed to inform clients that they
would be liable for costs even if their claims were unsuccessful thus making the ad violate
2-101(A). They also faulted him for using illustrations in his ad. The Office stipulated
that the other information was not false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive and that the
drawing was an accurate representation. The Supreme Court agreed with the Board and found
the ad to be in violation and that D deserved a public reprimand.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment