{"id":1782,"date":"2026-04-14T07:37:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T11:37:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/?page_id=1782"},"modified":"2026-04-14T07:37:11","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T11:37:11","slug":"righteous-advocates-or-unscrupulous-opportunists-the-opposing-narratives-about-lawyers-in-the-maracich-v-spears-briefs","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/in-print\/volume-38-issue-4-fall-2025\/righteous-advocates-or-unscrupulous-opportunists-the-opposing-narratives-about-lawyers-in-the-maracich-v-spears-briefs\/","title":{"rendered":"Righteous Advocates or Unscrupulous Opportunists? The Opposing Narratives About Lawyers in the Maracich v. Spears Briefs"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2007, a car dealership\u2019s director of sales and marketing received a letter stating that if he had been charged unlawful fees when purchasing a car, he could join ongoing litigation against several South Carolina car dealerships, including his own.<\/span> Edward Maracich\u2014along with 34,000 other South Carolina residents\u2014received this communication labeled \u201cADVERTISING MATERIAL\u201d<\/span> from state-licensed trial lawyers.<\/span> The lawyers had been seeking to determine whether the recipients had been charged illegal fees when purchasing a car and directed them to return an enclosed reply card if they wished to participate in the litigation.<\/span> They had obtained the information of the potential plaintiffs from the South Carolina DMV by submitting several Freedom of Information Act (\u201cFOIA\u201d) requests to identify people who had purchased a vehicle from a South Carolina dealership within specified time periods.<\/span> A federal statute enacted in 1994, the Drivers\u2019 Privacy Protection Act (\u201cDPPA\u201d), prohibits obtaining personal information from motor vehicle records without the person\u2019s express consent.<\/span> However, the lawyers explained in their FOIA requests that the pursuit of the personal information fell under the \u201clitigation exception\u201d of section (b)(4) of the DPPA, which permits use of personal information \u201cfor use in connection with . . . [and] . . . in anticipation of litigation.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

After learning that the lawyers had contacted more than 34,000 people, Maracich and other South Carolina residents filed a <\/span>class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that the trial lawyers had violated the DPPA by obtaining personal information from motor vehicle records without the express consent of the class members.<\/span> The trial lawyers won in both the District and Circuit Courts.<\/span> The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the trial lawyers argued that the communication was lawful\u2014because it fell under the litigation exception of section (b)(4) of the DPPA\u2014and the South Carolina residents argued that it was impermissible lawyer solicitation\u2014not covered by the litigation exception.<\/span> The Supreme Court sided with the residents, holding that the DPPA\u2019s protections do <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> encompass the use of personal information for solicitation of legal clients.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lawyer solicitation has long been considered questionable, even \u201cconcern[ing].\u201d<\/span> Advocates arguing in favor of or against lawyer solicitation\u2014as with any other legal issue\u2014face the challenge of crafting stories that both serve their client and adhere to factual accuracy. These persuasive stories, however, can sometimes stretch the truth to a point that risks violating ethical rules, walking a fine line between the obligations requiring candor to the tribunal<\/span> and diligent and zealous client representation.<\/span> The case of <\/span>Maracich v. Spears<\/span><\/i> provides a valuable lens through which to examine these ethical tensions. By analyzing the parties\u2019<\/span>briefs in this case\u2014focusing on their introductions, factual statements, and statutory arguments\u2014this Note explores how lawyers navigate the fine line between persuasive storytelling and the duty of honesty to the court.<\/span><\/p>\n

This Note uses the narrative and cluster methods of rhetorical analysis to emphasize how the parties\u2019 briefs before the Supreme Court in this case create dueling \u201cclient-centered narratives\u201d<\/span> about the role of lawyers and the practice of client solicitation, potentially raising ethical issues by blurring the lines between zealous advocacy and candor to the tribunal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Part I discusses the ethical obligations of lawyers to the court, their clients, and the profession and it questions whether the parties in <\/span>Maracich<\/span><\/i> violated those duties in creating their client-centered narratives. Part II explains the artifacts\u2019<\/span> background, including the circumstances that gave rise to the <\/span>Maracich<\/span><\/i> litigation. Part III briefly summarizes the rhetorical methods used in this analysis. These are the narrative method\u2014which aims to identify the objective, characters, plots, settings, themes, and functions of the narratives\u2014and the cluster method\u2014which looks at the key terms and analyzes how the clusters around them shape a particular picture in the reader\u2019s mind.<\/span><\/p>\n

Part IV analyzes the artifacts according to the methods described in Part III, and it reveals that each side crafts a narrative most beneficial to their client. Petitioners (the South Carolina residents) paint a picture of privacy violated: the trial lawyers as unscrupulous opportunists who are sending out \u201cmass solicitation\u201d to line their pockets. Respondents (the lawyers) portray themselves as zealous advocates, akin to righteous heroes, who are investigating and fighting for the rights of thousands of individuals. Finally, Part V concludes by affirming that the client-centered narratives employed in the briefs do not constitute ethical violations. Rather, these narratives fall squarely within zealous and diligent advocacy because, though creative and persuasive, they remain truthful and factually accurate and thus do not violate the duty of candor to the tribunal.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Keep Reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2007, a car dealership\u2019s director of sales and marketing received a letter stating that if he had been charged unlawful fees when purchasing a car, he could join ongoing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14207,"featured_media":0,"parent":1755,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-1782","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14207"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1782"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1782\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1784,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1782\/revisions\/1784"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}