Zauderer v. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

471 U.S. 626 (1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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 computed 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.