ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Trade Regulation Talk

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: Trade Regulation Talk

By John W. Arden

ADVERTISEMENTS

Attorney Ads Not Subject to Heightened Scrutiny Under Colorado Law

This posting was written by Mark Engstrom, Editor of CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law.

Attorney advertising was not subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the federal district court in Denver has ruled.

Neither case law nor the Colorado rules of professional conduct supported a special standard for attorney advertising. In fact, the Colorado Supreme Court?s decision in Crowe v. Tull (CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law ¶31,147) stated precisely the opposite: ?[the] potential for consumer targeting demonstrates the need for the same protections against deceptive legal advertising as exists for other purveyors of goods and services.?

Moreover, rules governing attorney ethics had no bearing on the question of whether an advertisement was misleading for purposes of the CPA, the court stated. This was one of the major points of Crowe, which explained that ?[w]hile safeguarding the public against consumer fraud may at times be an ancillary consequence of the disciplinary system, its rules and remedies are not tailored to that specific purpose.?

If the ethics rules warranted a heightened CPA standard for attorney advertising, the Crowe court would have said so when it considered the effect of the ethics rule at issue, the court observed.

In this instance, the plaintiffs (clients of the defendant attorney) had not?and could not have?alleged that the representations at issue were factually unsubstantiated. Claims that the attorney would ?work hard to get clients every dollar (clients) deserve? were statements of intent or opinion, not statements of verifiable fact, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the plaintffs? motion for reconsideration of the summary rejection of their CPA claim was denied.

The April 3 decision, Pappas v. Frank Azar & Associates, P.C., will appear in the CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law.

Full post as published by Trade Regulation Talk on April 24, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0039 secs (from cache 11/04/26 20:55:40)