Rule 7.1.Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services 
 (a)A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about 
 the lawyer or the lawyer's services.  A communication is false or misleading 
 if it: 
  
 (1)contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a 
 fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially 
 misleading; 
  
 (2)is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the 
 lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results 
 by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; 
  
 (3)compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, 
 unless the comparison can be factually substantiated; 
  
 (b)No lawyer shall, directly or indirectly, pay all or a part of the 
 cost of communications concerning a lawyer's services by a lawyer not in the 
 same firm unless the communication discloses the name and address of the 
 non-advertising lawyer, the relationship between the advertising lawyer and 
 the non-advertising lawyer, 
 and whether the advertising lawyer may refer any case received through the 
 advertisement to the non-advertising lawyer. 
  
 (c)Unsolicited communications concerning a lawyer's services mailed to 
 prospective clients shall be sent only by regular U.S. mail, not by 
 registered mail or other forms of restricted delivery. 
  
 (d)Any communication that states or implies the client does not have 
 to pay a fee if there is no recovery shall also disclose that the client may 
 be 
 liable for costs.  This provision does not apply to communications that only 
 state that contingent or percentage fee arrangements are available, or that 
 only state the initial consultation is free. 
  
 (e)A lawyer shall not knowingly permit, encourage or assist in any way 
 employees, agents or other persons to make communications on behalf of the 
 lawyer or the law firm in violation of this rule or Rules 7.2 through 7.4. 
  
 (f)In connection with the sale of a private law practice under rule 
 1.17, an opinion of the purchasing lawyer's suitability and competence to 
 represent existing clients shall not violate this rule if the lawyer complies 
 with Rule 1.17(d). 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSSource: 
 (f) added and adopted June 12, 1997, effective July 1, 1997; 
 entire rule and comment amended and adopted June 12, 1997, 
 effective January 1, 1998. 
  
  
  
 COMMENT 
 This rule governs all communications about a lawyer's services, 
 including advertising permitted by Rule 7.2 and solicitations governed by 
 Rule 7.3. 
  
 The touchstone of this rule, as well as Rules 7.2 through 7.4, is that all 
 communications regarding a lawyer's services must be truthful.  Truthful 
 communications regarding a lawyer's services provide a valuable public 
 service and, in any event, are constitutionally protected.  False and 
 misleading statements regarding a lawyer's services do not serve any valid 
 purpose and may be constitutionally proscribed. 
  
 It is not possible to catalog all types and variations of 
 communications that are false or misleading.  Nevertheless, certain types of 
 statements recur and deserve special attention. 
  
 One of the basic covenants of a lawyer is that the lawyer is competent 
 to handle those matters accepted by the lawyer.  C.R.P.C. 1.1.  It is 
 therefore 
 false and misleading for a lawyer to advertise for clients in a field of 
 practice where the lawyer is not competent within the meaning of Rule 1.1. 
  
 Characterizations of a lawyer's fees such as "cut-rate", "lowest" and 
 "cheap" are likely to be misleading if those statements cannot be factually 
 substantiated.  Similarly, characterizations regarding a lawyer's abilities 
 or skills have the potential to be misleading where those characterizations 
 cannot be factually substantiated.  Equally problematic are factually 
 unsubstantiated characterizations of the results that a lawyer has in the 
 past obtained.  Such statements often imply that the lawyer will be able to 
 obtain the same or similar results in the future.  This type of statement, 
 due 
 to the inevitable factual and legal differences between different 
 representations, is likely to mislead prospective clients. 
  
 Statements that a law firm has a vast number of years of experience, 
 by aggregating the experience of all members of the firm, provide little 
 meaningful information to prospective clients and have the potential to be 
 misleading. 
  
 Statements such as "no recovery, no fee" are misleading if they do not 
 additionally mention that a client may be obligated to pay costs of the 
 lawsuit.  Any communication that states or implies the client does not have 
 to pay a fee if there is no recovery shall also disclose that the client may 
 be 
 liable for costs. 
  
 Finally, Rule 7.1(c) proscribes unsolicited communications sent by 
 restricted means of delivery.  It is misleading and an invasion of the 
 recipient's privacy for a lawyer to send advertising information to a 
 prospective client by registered mail or other forms of restricted delivery. 
 Such modes falsely imply a degree of exigence or importance that is 
 unjustified under the circumstances. 
  
  
  
 ANNOTATION 
  
 Annotator's note. 
 Rule 7.1 is similar to 
 DR 2-101, DR 2-102, and DR 9-101 as they 
 existed prior to the 1992 repeal and reenactment of the Code of 
 Professional Responsibility. 
 Relevant cases construing 
 DR 2-101 and DR 2-102 have 
 been included in the annotations to this rule. 
 Cases construing DR 9-101 have been included under Rule 1.2. 
  
 Lawyer advertisement containing false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair 
 statements in violation of the rule warrants public, rather than private, 
 censure.  Respondent terminated referral service being advertised after the 
 initial request for investigation was filed and cooperated in disciplinary 
 proceedings but had received a past letter of admonition and had substantial 
 experience in the practice of law.  Respondent's conduct involved dishonesty 
 and misrepresentation and, in conjunction with prior discipline, foreclosed a 
 private sanction.  People v. Carpenter, 893 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1995). 
  
 Cases Decided Under Former DR 2-101. 
 Law reviews.  For comment, "A Consumers' Rights Interpretation of the 
 First Amendment Ends Bans on Legal Advertising", see 55 Den. L.J. 103 (1978). 
 For article, "Lawyer Advertising", see 15 Colo. Law. 1819 (1986). 
 For article, "Marketing Your Practice", see 16 Colo. Law. 259 (1987). 
 For article, "Reading Beyond the Labels:  Effective Regulation of Lawyers' 
 Targeted Direct Mail Advertising", see 58 U. Colo. L. Rev. 255 (1987). 
 For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee on 
 Lawyer Advertising, Solicitation and Publicity, see 19 Colo. Law. 25 (1990). 
 For comment, "After Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association: Much Remains 
 Unresolved About the Allowable Limits of Restrictions on Attorney 
 Advertising", see 61 U. Colo. L. Rev. 115 (1990). 
 For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee on 
 Collaboration with Non-Lawyers in the Preparation and Marketing of Estate 
 Planning Documents, see 19 Colo. Law. 1793 (1990). 
  
 Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules 
 is sufficient to justify suspension.  People v. Smith, 830 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 
 1992). 
  
 Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify suspension. 
 People v. Roehl, 655 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1983). 
  
 Cases Decided Under Former DR 2-102. 
 Law reviews. 
 For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee on 
 Lawyer Advertising, Solicitation and Publicity, see 19 Colo. Law. 25 (1990). 
 For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics 
 Committee on Listing Support Personnel Names on Letterhead and Business 
 Cards, see 19 Colo. Law. 629 (1990). 
  
 Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules 
 is sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Smith, 830 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 
 1992).