Categories: Breaking NewsGovernment NewsNewsPolitics

South Carolina Supreme Court Reprimands Lawyer for Misleading Ads

Symbolic representation of legal ethics in advertising.

News Summary

Michael Hostilo, a Savannah lawyer, received a public reprimand from the South Carolina Supreme Court due to misleading advertising practices. This follows an investigation into his flashy marketing tactics which misrepresented his firm’s qualifications and history in South Carolina. The court ordered a fine of $1,000 and mandated him to cover the investigation costs. Hostilo has admitted to the violations and taken steps to improve his advertising practices, including completing an ethics program.

Columbia, South Carolina – A Setback for a Legal Star

In an unexpected turn of events for Savannah-based lawyer Michael Hostilo, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a public reprimand regarding misleading advertising practices. Known for his flashy law firm promotions that grace television, YouTube, and street corners across the Southeast, Hostilo has found himself under the legal microscope following an investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).

What Sparked the Investigation?

It all started when the ODC took a closer look at the advertising tactics used by Hostilo, who, despite his fame and flashy commercials, is not licensed to practice law in South Carolina. Instead, he relies on a team of South Carolina-licensed attorneys in Beaufort, Charleston, and Columbia. This places him squarely within the reach of the state’s legal conduct rules, which aim to ensure that legal advertising is truthful.

The investigation concluded that some of Hostilo’s ads sent the wrong message, potentially creating unjustified expectations about legal outcomes. As a result, the Supreme Court handed down a $1,000 fine—a slap on the wrist by legal standards—and ordered him to cover the costs associated with the ODC’s investigation. All the while, Hostilo voluntarily admitted to the violations and entered into a discipline agreement with the ODC to address the concerns.

Flashy Ads and Misleading Claims

Hostilo’s marketing approach has always been memorable, if not a bit controversial. His advertisements have been known to feature outlandish themes—perhaps most notably, one where he dons a superhero costume, which many believed misled viewers into thinking his firm had a direct connection to winning car wreck cases.

During high-profile events, such as the NCAA title game matchup between Houston and Florida, his firm’s ads were not hard to miss. However, the scrutiny intensified over specific examples, like a billboard that displayed Hostilo’s face amidst a sea of dollar signs, raising eyebrows about its informative value. The message seemed cloudy at best, overshadowed by flashy graphics suggesting large sums of money rather than offering practical legal insight.

Website Whirlwind of Misrepresentation

As if the ads weren’t enough, Hostilo’s firm website also faced criticism for spreading misleading information. For instance, it inaccurately boasted about the firm’s history in South Carolina, incorrectly claiming they had been serving clients there for much longer than they actually had, having only established operations in 2018. This was compounded by errors related to wrongful death claim statute limitations and attorney qualifications.

Digging deeper, investigators found several profiles of attorneys on Hostilo’s website indicating they could practice in states where they were not properly licensed. This oversight stemmed from content being copied over without the necessary edits to conform to legal standards, leading to further questions about ethics and accuracy.

Steps toward Improvement

Recognizing the gravity of the situation, Michael Hostilo has already taken proactive measures. In March 2023, he completed the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Advertising School, which focuses on educating lawyers about ethical advertising standards. This could potentially help him reestablish his credibility as he moves forward.

The public reprimand serves as a crucial reminder that even well-known attorneys must adhere to legal advertising standards. The spotlight is now on Hostilo to turn this setback into an opportunity for better practices in the future. Moving ahead, he will hope that his compliance with the rules and the steps he has taken toward improvement will help restore confidence in his legal brand.

Only time will tell how this incident will shape not only Hostilo’s law practice but also the way personal injury attorneys approach advertising in an ever-evolving legal landscape.