The New York state courts are proposing new rules that would significantly tighten up on lawyers’ freedom to chase potential clients, including injury cases, in the Empire State. In particular, lawyers would be forbidden to solicit disaster victims in most situations for 30 days after a disaster. As for advertising, “Significant restrictions would be imposed on the use of fictionalization, and lawyers would be banned from using nicknames or monikers — such as ‘heavy hitter’ or ‘dream team’ — that imply an ability to obtain results….lawyers would be prohibited from using current client testimonials, from portraying judges, from re-enacting courtroom or accident scenes and from using courthouses or courtrooms as props. They would also be barred from using paid endorsements, and from using the recognizable voice of a non-attorney celebrity to tout the lawyer’s skills.” Beyond that, they would have to be prepared to substantiate ad claims and keep ads on file for three years. (John Caher, “New York Courts Back Expansive Lawyer Ad Restrictions”, New York Law Journal, Jun. 15). For critical reaction, see Dennis Kennedy, Between Lawyers, Jun. 15 (“a shocking number of draconian and micro-managing rules “), and Robert Ambrogi, LegalBlogWatch, Jun. 16).
The rules are here (PDF) and the comment period lasts through Sept. 15. More: The state Academy of Trial Lawyers likes the idea.
7 Comments
I remember when lawyers first obtained the right to advertise, I figured no harm no foul.
BOY was I wrong!
The underlying problem is not advertising. Advertising is the symptom. The cause is that there are too many attorneys. So many that they are forced to advertise in order to make a living.
If it were up to me I’d cut the number of attorneys allowed to pass the various state bars by 50%.
As a lawyer, I agree with Ima Fish. There are simply too many lawyers fighting for clients. The ads might be tastless but most of my clients simply need the ads to find a lawyer. While I might know a lot of lawyers, my clients only know me, and the other guy with a flashy ad!
“The ads might be tastless but most of my clients simply need the ads to find a lawyer.”
BTW, I’m not attacking with you, I’m just using your quote as a starting point.
I think a lawsuit should be a very rare thing. It should not be as easy to find a lawyer as it is to find a bag of potato chips.
The only thing a person should really need an attorney for would be for a criminal matter.
Do we really need attorneys for divorces, to settle disputes between neighbors, or to sue your local school because your kid didn’t make the honor roll?
The sole reason we’re getting so many frivolous lawsuits is because obtaining an attorney is a frivolous matter, i.e., “lacking in seriousness.”
“Do we really need attorneys for divorces, to settle disputes between neighbors, or to sue your local school because your kid didn’t make the honor roll?”
Well, leaving out that third point, yes, unfortunately, we do.
Now, we SHOULDN’T, and that we do is one of the many great flaws in our system, but that wasn’t your question.
“Well, leaving out that third point, yes, unfortunately, we do.”
Why do we? Nearly all states have laws saying that the property has to be divided 50%. So that’s already decided. Then simply have a mediator decided who gets custody of the kids.
I’ve known attorneys who have had divorce cases last several years, decades. Does it really take that long to divide up property and decide who gets the kids?!
Out adversarial process is what turned it into an adversarial mess. When a divorce attorney gets a client willing to pay the bills, what incentive does s/he ever have to complete the matter?!
Ima Fish,
I’m not remotely disagreeing with you on principle, just commenting on the way the system currently “works” (not a good term for what the system currently does).