Committee advances bill to curb deceptive legal advertising, narrows draft to two sections

A legislative committee advanced a bill aimed at curbing false, deceptive and misleading legal‑services advertising and directed staff to redraft narrowed language for consideration by the full body.

The measure, described to the committee by Caitlin, would define deceptive advertising for legal services; require ads that reference a specific dollar recovery to disclose the amount or percentage of attorney fees and litigation costs; require a disclaimer that example results are not representative of all cases; and require specific language when ads imply lawsuits against insurers. Caitlin said violations would be enforceable by the Department of Consumer Affairs and that the bill does not create a private cause of action.

Supporters said the bill is a consumer‑protection response to frequent, promissory and sometimes predatory ads. “This bill seeks to define what constitutes false, deceptive, or misleading advertising and establishes certain requirements for legal advertisements,” Caitlin said. The sponsor described numerous constituent complaints about advertisements that promise large recoveries without disclosing fees or costs.

Opponents and some members raised constitutional and practical concerns. A senator from Charleston said the judiciary—citing Article 5, Section 4 of the state constitution—traditionally regulates attorney discipline and warned that giving the Department of Consumer Affairs an enforcement role could create overlap between branches. “My concern is creating these two,” the senator said, urging caution about separation of powers and asking whether complainants had first filed disciplinary complaints with the bar.

The sponsor replied most complainants had not filed with judicial disciplinary authorities and emphasized the bill targets advertising content rather than attorney conduct subject to discipline. Several members also noted the risk of First Amendment litigation by out‑of‑state firms and recommended narrowly tailored disclosure requirements rather than broad, per se prohibitions.

A recurring concern was the role of nonlawyer third‑party lead generators that create and sponsor many mass advertising campaigns. The sponsor proposed, and members supported, language to make it an unlawful trade practice for a person or entity—including third‑party generators or referral services—to create, sponsor, finance or disseminate advertising for legal services in a false, deceptive, or misleading manner and to require ads to disclose the identity of the attorney or law firm that will primarily be responsible for client representation or explain how referral to an attorney will occur.

After discussion, the sponsor moved to amend the draft to include only section A (definitions, including third‑party entities) and section E (disclosure of the identity/responsibility of counsel), and to give staff authority to draft technical language before the full‑body hearing; that motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The committee then moved a favorable report and voted to send the measure to the full body for further consideration.

The committee did not adopt broader per se prohibitions during the meeting and directed staff to refine the limited amendments. The next procedural step is the full‑body consideration of the bill with the committee’s recommended changes.