S.C. Supreme Court disciplines prominent personal injury attorney known for flashy ads
A prominent Savannah-based personal injury lawyer has been admonished by the South Carolina Supreme Court for misleading advertising following an investigation.
The court on Wednesday issued a public reprimand of Michael Hostilo for advertising violations and ordered him to pay a $1,000 fine and pay legal costs of an investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), which looks into allegations of ethical misconduct brought forward by lawyers and judges or the public. Hostilo voluntarily entered into the discipline agreement with the ODC and admitted to the violations.
In South Carolina, lawyer discipline is administered by the Supreme Court through the ODC, rather than the South Carolina Bar.
Hostilo is licensed to practice law in Georgia, not in South Carolina. But he employs South Carolina-licensed attorneys in Beaufort, Charleston and Columbia. As such, he is subject to the supervision of South Carolina Supreme Court for any violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Messages left with Hostilo’s office had not been returned as of late Thursday afternoon. His attorney would not comment on the case.
Who is Mike Hostilo?
Hostilo, a Savannah-based attorney who grew up in Beaufort, owns The Mike Hostilo Law Firm. He is one of the region’s most recognizable personal injury attorneys thanks to his flashy advertisements on television, YouTube and billboards. Television ads for his firm, which has 13 offices across Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama, were among those shown during Monday’s NCAA title game between Houston and Florida.
In one super hero ad currently running on YouTube, which was not part of the investigation, Hostilo dons a cape and mask and urges potential clients to call his firm if they’ve been injured in a car wreck.
The Rules of Professional Conduct guiding attorneys in South Carolina forbid misleading statements about expectations and require that people who give testimonials be properly identified. The rules also say factual information must be prioritized over attention-grabbing techniques. Disclaimers are required.
Hostilo admitted to violating those rules in some of his advertising.
Billboard and YouTube ads cited
A billboard advertisement cited in the Supreme Court’s order featured Hostilo’s picture and a background of dollar signs including one representing the letter “s” in his name. Hostilo admitted it was likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, and was not predominantly informational, which the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of lawyers require.
The court also took issue with a YouTube advertisement that said: “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].” The add then gives the firm’s phone number and website and concludes: “We’re great at math.” “Respondent admits this advertisement is likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results his law firm can achieve,” the reprimand says.
Website information questioned
At the time of the ODC investigation, the firm’s website contained various misrepresentations and misleading statements, the court said. It contained a results page with a disclaimer, for example, that advised viewers that South Carolina cases are handled by an attorney who had not been employed by Hostilo for more than two years. The website also said the firm had been “proudly serving the injured in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina for nearly 30 years.” But the firm, the disciplinary order said, had only been offering services in South Carolina since 2018, and the firm itself had existed for 18 years (Hostilo, as an attorney, had been practicing in Georgia for nearly 30 years).
The wrongful death page of the website also 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,” the court wrote. “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.”
Public reprimand
Following any ODC investigation, several possible outcomes are possible: Dismissal, referral to another agency, notifying the lawyer of an intent to impose an admonition, formal charges or an agreement for discipline by consent. In Hostilo’s case, he entered into an agreement for discipline by consent with the ODC and the Supreme Court. The public reprimand was published Wednesday.
“In the agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a confidential admonition or a public reprimand,” the opinion states. “We accept the agreement and issue a public reprimand.”
Hostilo’s discipline would have included completing the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Advertising School, a comprehensive study of the fundamentals of legal ethics offered by the ODC and South Carolina Bar, the Supreme Court said. But Hostilo had already completed it in March 2023.
Hostilo also was taken to task for several advertising statements that could not be substantiated such as, “Mike Hostilo’s team fights like no other law firm for our accident victims,” and, “Our experienced Worker’s Comp layers have handled many cases like yours —with the record of results to back us up!” These also were likely to create an unjustified expectation about the results the firm can achieve, the reprimand says.
This story was originally published April 10, 2025 at 4:34 PM.
