“I’m your lawyer” might be false advertising when lawyer’s firm won’t do the work

Rosenbaum & Assoc., P.C. v. Morgan & Morgan, 2018 WL
327167, No. 17-4250 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2018)
A Philadelphia personal injury law firm that advertises
extensively on TV and billboards alleged that a national personal injury law
firm’s expansion into Philadelphia caused it to lose potential personal injury
clients through TV and billboard ads when the national law firm didn’t, and
never intends to, represent Pennsylvania personal injury clients. Instead, it
allegedly referred all or a vast majority of potential local clients to other
law firms in exchange for a referral fee if the client eventually recovers.  The court allowed plaintiffs to proceed
against the national firm, its managing global partner and (for one statement)
the national firm’s senior partner for four possibly false, deceptive or
misleading statements in TV commercials.   In one TV ad, John Morgan, a founding Morgan
& Morgan attorney, states “I’m not just any lawyer, I’m your lawyer,”
though he’s not licensed in Pennsylvania. 
Another ad says “we’re all here for you,” and, “our family is here for
your family.” In addition, an ad says “you don’t pay us unless we’re
successful.” Although this is true, Rosenbaum argued that it could be deceptive
because it suggests Morgan & Morgan needs to be successful when, in fact,
Morgan & Morgan has no role in the success. 
Ads used to include a written disclaimer claiming not to be “a referral
service.” After the lawsuit was filed, Morgan & Morgan revised this
disclaimer to remove that statement and add “Cases may be referred to and
handled by another law firm as co-counsel.”
The complaint stated a plausible claim that “I’m your
lawyer” was misleading or literally false because it could deceive Pennsylvania
consumers into believing John Morgan would personally represent then when in
reality he wouldn’t represent, and arguably couldn’t represent, them in a
Pennsylvania personal injury matter. Unidentified members of the Morgan family also
appeared in a television ad and a voice states “We’re all here for you” and
“Our family is here for your family.” This also plausibly stated a claim for
misleading or literally false advertisingbecause Morgan & Morgan didn’t
employ attorneys licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and the members of the
Morgan family appearing in the advertisement allegedly weren’t licensed to
practice in Pennsylvania and didn’t intend to ever represent clients in the
Philadelphia area.
“You don’t pay us unless we’re successful”: Similarly, this
could be misleading or literally false insofar as Morgan & Morgan would
never represent the clients in the Philadelphia area, meaning a client could never
owe fees to Morgan & Morgan because Morgan & Morgan could never be
successful. [This seems to be necessary implication: the necessary implication of “unless” is that “we might be successful” and further “it will be ‘we’ representing you.”] “Not a referral service” and the revised disclaimer “may be
referred to and handled by another firm as co-counsel”: Morgan & Morgan
argued Rosenbaum couldn’t claim to be a “referral service” without implicating
Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(k), but there’s an absence of
authority defining referral service. The comments to Rule 7.2 (k) say that it’s
“misleading to the public for a lawyer or law firm, with knowledge that the
lawyer or law firm will not be handling a majority of the cases attracted by
advertising, to nonetheless advertise for those cases only to refer the cases
to another lawyer whom the client did not initially contact.”  Because this question “involves both a fact
investigation of the extent of these referrals as opposed to retained matters
and eventually a determination of whether telling potential clients of your
interest in being their lawyer when, in fact, you do not intend to be their
lawyer is unfair competition,” it couldn’t be resolved at the motion to dismiss
stage.

Rosenbaum also pled a claim against individual attorneys who
allegedly “authorized and approved the acts of unfair competition,” and as to
which he alleged “some specific role in the statements which equate to unfair
competition,” whereas merely being a senior officer of the advertiser wasn’t
enough.  Being a spokesperson in the ad,
unsurprisingly, was enough.  So was the
allegation that the global managing partner “approved” and “authorized” the
advertisements to be shown in the Philadelphia area.  Other named defendants, however, weren’t
sufficiently alleged to be personally involved, even if they were Morgan family
members who appeared in an ad; the “family” statements were made by voiceover
and it wasn’t clear who said it.  Appearing
in a commercial where an alleged misrepresentation is also stated “without more
detail is not sufficient to show they ‘actively participated in or personally
directed or actively supervised or approved of or sanctioned’” the allegedly
false ads.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2qUKHj0

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s