## Facts

- A law firm’s website advertised “free initial consultations” without defining what the “initial consultation” included.
- A family scheduled a meeting about a probate matter and met with one of the attorneys for about 30 minutes of general discussion that the family understood to be the free consultation.
- The family then signed a written flat-fee agreement that included an hourly-rate provision if the representation ended early.
- After the agreement was signed, the attorney conducted roughly 20–25 minutes of legal research, returned to report findings, and later claimed an additional 15 minutes of research.
- The family later decided not to retain the firm, and the attorney billed for the time spent after the agreement was signed pursuant to the hourly provision.
- The family objected, believing the entire encounter was part of the advertised free initial consultation.
- Both attorneys had no prior discipline and cooperated in the disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether advertising “free initial consultations” without clarifying scope, followed by billing for part of the initial encounter, constituted a false or misleading communication about legal services.
2. Whether the attorneys failed to adequately communicate the basis or rate of the fee by not clearly distinguishing when any free consultation ended and billable representation began.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio found professional misconduct based on misleading communications and inadequate fee communication.
- The court adopted the Board’s findings and conclusions.
- The court imposed a public reprimand on each attorney.

## Legal Principles

- Lawyer advertising and other communications about services must not be false or misleading, including communications that are likely to mislead reasonable prospective clients about fees or the nature of services.
- The client-facing meaning of a “free consultation” must be clear; an undefined “free initial consultation” claim, paired with billing practices that a reasonable client would view as inconsistent with that claim, violates rules governing truthful communications.
- Lawyers must communicate the nature and scope of representation and the basis or rate of the fee within a reasonable time after commencing representation; a written agreement does not cure unclear transitions from any free consultation to billable work.
- Sanctions in disciplinary cases consider mitigating factors such as lack of prior discipline, cooperation, and absence of intent to deceive.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court publicly reprimanded two attorneys after concluding that an undefined “free initial consultation” advertisement, combined with billing for work performed during what clients reasonably understood as the initial free meeting, was misleading and reflected a failure to clearly communicate when fees would begin.


Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Mezher, 982 N.E.2d 657 (Ohio 2012)