Matter of Zang
Arizona Supreme Court
741 P.2d 267 (1987)
Attorneys Stephen Zang and Peter Whitmer (respondents) ran ads depicting themselves as capable trial lawyers using dramatic courtroom and accident scenes, emphasizing trial-preparation advantages like investigators and medical expertise, even though their firm filed complaints in only 5% of its roughly 1,500 cases and, of the roughly 20 cases referred to outside trial counsel, only about 9 actually went to trial - with the firm's own single attempted trial ending in mistrial after the first witness. Zang, despite a medical degree and consulting experience, had never tried a personal injury case, and Whitmer had only minimal personal-injury trial experience from over a decade earlier; the state bar found the ads false and misleading.
Whether attorney advertising may be false or misleading.