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.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.