Ads Draw Reprimand: “We’re Great At Math” and Dollar Signs

A Georgia attorney who is not admitted in South Carolina has been publicly reprimanded by the South Carolina Supreme Court

Respondent is licensed to practice law in Georgia, but he is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina. Respondent also employs South Carolina-licensed attorneys who provide legal services in South Carolina and advertises his firm’s services in South Carolina. As such, he is subject to the supervision of this Court for any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing advertising and solicitation of clients.

Violations

Respondent’s law firm maintains a website that, at the time of ODC’s investigation, contained various material misrepresentations, misleading statements, and statements that were likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results Respondent’s law firm could achieve. Specifically, Respondent’s law firm website contained a “Results” page featuring both a disclaimer advising viewers that South Carolina cases are handled by an attorney who had not been employed or associated with Respondent’s firm for more than two years and a statement that “we’ve been proudly serving the injured in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina for nearly 30 years.” Respondent’s law firm has offered services in South Carolina only since January 2018, and the firm itself has been in existence only since 2007.

The “Wrongful Death” page of Respondent’s firm’s website incorrectly stated the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims in South Carolina. Further, several individual attorney profile pages on Respondent’s firm’s website indicated that the attorneys handled cases in jurisdictions in which they were not licensed to practice law. Respondent explains that this was due to blocks of content being cut and pasted into each attorney’s profile page by the firm’s content creators. Respondent admits these were material misrepresentations.

Further, the homepage of Respondent’s law firm website contained the following statements, which were likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results Respondent’s firm can achieve: (1) “Our record of results is proof that your case is in the very best hands”; and (2) “Our experienced Workers’ Comp lawyers have handled many cases just like yours—with the record of results to back us up!” The “Results” page of Respondent’s firm’s website listed numerous recovery amounts on behalf of clients without clearly and conspicuously stating that any results the firm may have achieved on behalf of clients in other matters does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients. This page also lacked sufficient reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances underlying the referenced recoveries, such that the “Results” page was likely to create unjustified expectations about the results Respondent could achieve.

Respondent’s law firm also contained improper statements comparing the firm’s services with other lawyers’ services in a manner that cannot be factually substantiated—namely that “Mike Hostilo’s team fights like no other law firm for our accident victims.” Respondent’s law firm also improperly used the term “expert” in several places, contained testimonials or endorsements without the necessary disclaimers, and failed to identify the specific geographic locations where the firm’s South Carolina lawyers principally practice. Additionally, Respondent’s firm website also stated “you don’t pay us unless we win” in various locations without disclosing whether clients will be liable for any expenses in addition to the fee or disclosing whether any contingency fee will be computed before expenses are deducted.

Lastly, Respondent admits that he failed to review the content on his firm’s website prior to its publication to reasonably ensure its compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct and that he failed to maintain a complete record of the website as required by Rule 7.2(b), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR.

YouTube 

In addition to his firm website, Respondent published a video advertisement on YouTube that stated:

Most people think that lawyers are bad at math. 1 + 1 = 2. But let me give you a simple formula. Mike Hostilo Law Firm + Car Wreck = big settlement! [$100 bills fill up the background of the screen.] So, if you have been injured in a car wreck, call or text us at 844-438-6453 or visit us at MikeHostiloLawFirm.com. We’re great at math.

Respondent admits this advertisement is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results his law firm can achieve.

Further, billboard ads violated ethics rules with “numerous dollar signs all over the billboard, including one representing the “s” in Respondent’s last name.”

Respondent had sought a confidential sanction.

In the Agreement, Respondent agrees to pay costs and consents to the imposition of a confidential admonition or a public reprimand. Attached to the Agreement, Respondent submitted an affidavit in mitigation in which he explains that upon receipt of the notice of investigation in this matter, he engaged a South Carolina licensed attorney to assist and advise him in reviewing his firm’s South Carolina operations. Respondent further explains that he also consulted with a South Carolina ethics counsel to “help us bring our marketing content in compliance.” Respondent explains he never intended to mislead clients and apologizes for his disregard for the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent emphasizes his apology and subsequent efforts to comply with the applicable advertising rules in requesting the Court impose a confidential admonition. 

Sanction

We find Respondent’s misconduct warrants a public reprimand.

(Mike Frisch)