holding that attorney advertising, though not false, was misleading because “[a] necessary 5 fact ha[d] been omitted”
How later courts described this case
- holding that attorney advertising, though not false, was misleading because “[a] necessary 5 fact ha[d] been omitted”
- noting that Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 and § 17500 “embrace not only advertising which is false, but also advertising which although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public”
- holding that attorney advertising, though not false, was misleading because “[a] necessary fact ha[d] been omitted.”
- The UCL and FAL “have been interpreted broadly to embrace not only advertising which is false, but also advertising which although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAUS, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree fully with the majority opinion, except as to one minor point: I do not think petitioners were charged with facts which would constitute a violation of rule 2-101(A)(4), nor do I believe that such a violation was proven. It seems to me that petitioners’ communications fairly trumpet their availability for professional employment.
*632 This minor difference of opinion in no way affects my agreement with the discipline imposed.
Petitioners’ application for a rehearing was denied September 25, 1985. Bird, C. J., and Grodin, J., were of the opinion that the application should be granted.