## Facts

- Magdy F. Anis, a New Jersey attorney, sent a direct-mail solicitation letter to the father of a victim of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing shortly after the victim’s death was confirmed.
- The letter sought representation for potential wrongful-death litigation.
- The letter stated that Anis and his brother were “experienced personal-injury lawyers.”
- The letter stated that a one-third contingency fee was “customary” and offered an unspecified “substantially reduced” fee if retained.
- The victim’s father filed an ethics complaint; the matter was investigated and prosecuted by attorney ethics authorities.
- Disciplinary bodies found the “experienced” claim misleading given the attorneys’ limited relevant experience, and found the “customary” one-third fee statement misleading given New Jersey’s fee-limitation rules for large recoveries.
- The committee recommended a public reprimand; the disciplinary review board recommended a private reprimand.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment protects an attorney’s targeted direct-mail solicitation to a grieving disaster victim’s family.
2. Whether a solicitation letter containing misleading statements about attorney experience and “customary” contingency fees constitutes unprotected false or misleading commercial speech subject to professional discipline.
3. What sanction is appropriate for misleading disaster-related solicitation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey imposed discipline in a per curiam decision.
- The Court held that false or misleading attorney solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment.
- The Court found the letter misleading as to both the attorneys’ experience and the asserted “customary” one-third contingency fee.
- The Court imposed a reprimand, rejecting the recommendation for a private reprimand.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney advertising and solicitation are commercial speech, but false, deceptive, or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited and sanctioned.
- Statements implying relevant “experience” must be truthful and not create unjustified expectations about competence in the matter solicited.
- Fee communications must not be misleading; describing a fee as “customary” can be deceptive when governing fee rules or caps make the stated arrangement atypical or unavailable.
- Targeted, truthful, noncoercive direct-mail solicitation may be permissible; discipline is warranted when solicitation contains material misrepresentations.

## Conclusion

The court disciplined an attorney for sending a prompt post-disaster solicitation letter that materially misrepresented both qualifications and fee expectations, holding that such misleading commercial speech falls outside First Amendment protection and warrants a reprimand.


In re Anis, 126 N.J. 448, 599 A.2d 1265 (N.J. 1992)