New Jersey Lawyers Canâ€™t Use Judicial Testimonials in Ads
The proposed rules limiting ads do not prohibit advertising fees, but do require the lawyer to charge the client the advertised fee or a lesser fee. Clarke claims to be against censorship, but she is willing to allow the censoring of ”misleading” or deceptive ads. It sounds suspiciously as if the only censorship she is against is any that might dry up advertising revenue. The kind of lawyer advertising we are debating eventually may create a situation where the best advertisers and marketing people (aided by persons such as Clarke), as opposed to the best lawyers, will be handling the cases. With regard to bodily injury claims, this may result in such lawyers becoming mere ”settlement brokers,” to the detriment of their clients. As a lawyer, I believe that the public should use its common sense on this issue, and should not be deceived by misleading labels (”anti-censorship”) or vague, misleading claims (it ”conveys legal rights”).
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-07-31/news/8907282527_1_lawyer-advertising-advertising-attorneys-censorship
TV and print ads are forbidden from “creating suspense, scenes containing exaggerations or situations calling for legal services,” according to the rules. “Citizens often choose lawyers based solely on their advertisements,” said Justice James Hardesty, who helped get the new rules passed. “Because choosing a lawyer can be such an important decision, we want our citizens to have accurate and complete information,” Hardesty said. In one commercial, Lerner cut checks to clients as a soccer announcer screamed “GOAL!” In another, he spun like a human tornado, generating cash for his clients. One new rule prohibits lawyers from creating an unjustified expectation about the outcome of a case. If a law firm advertises that it has obtained certain verdicts, for example, it must be able to provide proof. Golightly runs a television ad flanked by uniformed law enforcement agents from the North Las Vegas Police Department and the Nevada Highway Patrol.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/attorney-advertising-rules-okd-justices
New York lawyer advertising rules declared unconstitutional
Stringer , a personal injury and wrongful death lawyer from Tampa. Why should you hire him? Because hes on a billboard . No, really. Thats his entire pitch. Call me.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://abovethelaw.com/2011/12/adventures-in-lawyer-advertising-best-lawyer-billboard-ever/
Adventures in Lawyer Advertising: Best Lawyer Billboard Ever
The New Jersey Supreme Court implemented the guideline in 2012 after a New Jersey judge raised concerns that his statements in a non-published judicial opinion were quoted on a law firm website. The excerpt from the opinion stated: The inescapable conclusion is . . . that plaintiffs achieved a spectacular result when the file was in the hands of Mr. Dwyer . . .
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-jersey-lawyers-cant-use-judicial-te-00890/
Battles Over Lawyer Advertising Divide the Bar
“The New York rules went too far in imposing burdensome restrictions on legal free speech that do not protect consumers,” said Greg Beck, an attorney for Public Citizen who litigated the case. “The court rightly recognized that the First Amendment prevents states from arbitrarily restricting advertising just because some may find it distasteful.” In todays ruling, the court held that the advertising at issue in the case was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, and it categorically rejected New Yorks argument that advertising considered by the state to be trivial or irrelevant was not covered by free speech rights. It noted that the state had not produced any evidence that its restrictions on speech were necessary to protect consumers and found that the prohibitions were much broader than necessary to accomplish the states claimed objectives. Public Citizen also challenged the rules application to non-commercial speech, such as offers by lawyers to represent clients without a fee in civil rights cases. And in what amounted to another victory for free speech, the court construed the challenged amendments not to apply to nonprofit attorneys. “The main beneficiaries of this decision are New York consumers,” Beck said.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://kevin.lexblog.com/2007/07/23/new-york-lawyer-advertising-rules-declared-unconstitutional/
Attorney advertising rules OK’d by justices
It is one of many such battles being waged around the country as the old-line leaders of disciplinary boards and state bar associations from Florida and Nevada to Iowa and New York try to rein in their more freewheeling colleagues. Depending on one’s perspective, they are part of a last-ditch struggle for the soul of the legal profession, or a crass conflict for economic advantage by the old-boys’ club, waged at the expense of free speech principles. ”Lawyer advertising adversely affects the respect the public has for the judicial system and the administration of justice,” said Richard Ransom, the retired chief justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court who spearheaded the adoption of tough advertising rules in 1992. Victor Marshall, who is representing Mr. Bell in his Federal suit against the board, which ruled that some of Mr. Bell’s ads could be misleading, countered: ”The rules are unconstitutional as written and even more so as applied. Members of the public have seen his ads five hundred million times without ever claiming that they were misled. The only people who actually complained are other lawyers.” A changing and even contradictory patchwork of state regulations governs lawyer advertising, but since the 1977 Bates v.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/19/us/battles-over-lawyer-advertising-divide-the-bar.html