ANNOYING LAWYER ADS . . . The June 10 production of the Boston Bar podcast featured Professor Paul Teich, Associate Dean of New England School of Law, who is an expert on lawyer advertising. According to his research, some lawyers ads are certain to annoy:

References to money directly in an ad that people think are crass; dollar signs; comments like “we go after every dollar”; re-creations of accident scenes; certain absurd images of lawyers--for example, lawyers wearing a bicycle helmet, wearing hip boots, standing with a gun in a duck blind, having a deflated breast implant in your hands; these are things that feed into, in my opinion—feed into preconceived stereotypes about lawyers that are current. Some of those stereotypes are that they’re greedy, that they’re unethical, that they’re uncaring, that they stir up unnecessary and frivolous litigation. References to money bring up ideas about greed, absurd images make people think that lawyers will do anything for money, including sacrifice their own dignity.

How long before we see an end to annoying lawyer ads? Perhaps never. As Teich put it, "Unfortunately, maybe, for the profession, with specific target audiences, that stuff works, and it’s not likely to go away."

Here's a link to the show, where you'll hear the usual hosts, Paul Kenney and Jim Brady, as well as another guest, lawyer-advertising-extraordinaire James G. Sokolove.

Comments

[KipEsquire]

Here in NYC, the infamous Jacoby & Meyers used to run very low-key, inoffensive, even respectable ads, but recently they've gone so far over the top, with fake courthouse scenes, "clients" in wheelchairs, computer graphic accident re-enactments, etc., that it's both offensive and comical.

And some of the suburban law firms are even worse.

[Prof Yabut]

It's amusing seeing just how easily lawyers and "legal thics experts" are annoyed and offended. Please spare me the dignity-of-the-profession b.s. and the Ruining Our Image balderbash. What we should be offended by are declarations like that of the new President of the NYSBA, Rochester attorney A. Vincent Buzard, who hopes to limit lawyer advertising "to the fullest extent permitted, within the limitations of the First Amendment." (NYSBA press release, June 1, 2005; Democrat & Chronicle, "Bar leader is advocate for lawyers," May 30, 2005) Buzard told the D&C that he supports a program like the Monroe Country Bar Association's ad guidelines -- which f/k/a discusses here.

What makes lawyers look like fools and hypocrites is their insistence that it's not about the money -- and their treating consumers like idiots (usually as an excuse to limit competition).

[Evan]

Prof Yabut: I should point out, though I suppose it's obvious, that I pulled the quote out of a longer show--about a half-hour, I think--and put my own spin on it. So if my headline--"Annoying Lawyer Ads"--was not to your satisfcation, don't let it stop you from listening to the show, which was actually pro-advertising, generally speaking. (Another point of clarification: the persons being "annoyed" by the sort of ad that's summarized in the quotes are members of the general public, not lawyers and legal ethics experts.)

[Prof Yabut]

Evan, Are you saying that tort reformers are "the general public"?

p.s. Sorry, podcasts are too untractible. I do not have 30 mintues to kill checking one out.

[TheBigKahunaESQ]

Wow, Professor Yabut can comment, but can't take 30 minutes to listen to the source? Hmmmm ... heaven forbid that you break it up into 6 sessions of 5 minutes.

That being said:

Abe Lincoln advertised in print.

The focus of the interview was lawyer advertising ON TELEVISION.

People support ads as a general principle.

Research shows that there is no negative image associated with attorney ads

In polls, fewer than 5% say that the respondent's negative image is b/c of an atty ad.

The PROF then says:

His conclusions/comments:

My own research "with law students" (what the?) shows him that and convinces him that there are many people that think certain images are "destructive."

Puh - lease. His polling group is lawyer wannabes?

I listened/suffered through this thing in total. I really don't care what a law student or professor thinks about my ads. What matters is what the injured person thinks.

[Mark]

Oh by the way I listened to the Sokolove interview. I have a Motion in Limine that asks the Court to prohibit ANY discussion of my advertising. My ratio? 100% wins.

I let defense counsel argue against it, then say "If my ads are part of this case, his membership in country clubs as a way of advertising comes in as well."

So for this Professor to suggest that ads come into play, as usual does not take reality into account.

[Prof Yabut]

Hey, BigK, Prof. Yabut has priorities -- both with time and with causes to espouse (and has lots of other issues on his plate this week). Also, not being a p/i lawyer, he can't sit around waiting for the Big Lotto Lawsuit to walk in or the check to be cut.

[Mike]

I do not have 30 mintues to kill checking one out.

Yawn. You need a new shtik. Podcosts are automatically downloaded to one's iPod (or so I'm told). The person then takes a walk and listens to the podcast, just as someone might listen to a walkman.

I prefer to take my walks without any sounds but the internal ramblings of my mind. But others have different preferences.

So the issue, Prof. Yabut, is not one of time, but of preference. (Unless, of course, one doesn't have time to take a 30-minute walk.)

[Mark]

Professor was asked: What % of attorneys advertise? Professor says that ABA says 2% of ALL lawyers. "That is too high."

He cites a 2000 study, a 1987 study, and other old studies. I ask: Professor, is this the best ya got?

Why aren't more firms advertising? Professor says:
"Expensive, difficult, they don't know how it's done ... ." and he throws in "entrenched views about ads"

Again, his own personal prejudice and notions. It is NOT expensive if done right.

I am NOT impressed with the Professor.

[Tom]

I listened to the entire broadcast. My impression was that this interview started out about the effect lawyer ads have on the industry. No doubt there are some commercials out there that are done in very bad taste, but the more important point that I got from this is the general distaste the consumers have for the law profession. I see and hear this all the time. Jim Sokolove was right, there is a smear campaign out there against this profession and the bar associations and ATLA aren't doing enough to correct this problem. In fact, I read an article today that told me that Doctors spent more money in campaign contributions than lawyers (probably for the first time ever). Doctors increased their campaign contributions by 70% in 2004, is it any wonder that medical malpractice caps became a high priority for the Bush administration (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMv2Q31_fKf8)
Where is ATLA? What is being done to change the views of the general public?

I also liked the way Sokolove mentioned how the government is trying to take away the citizens right to trial. I'm sure he was referring to mesothelioma, seeing as how that has been his big meal ticket for quite some time now. This is a $147 BILLION bill, yet John Q Public knows nothing about this. I ask the question again, where is ATLA?

[Prof Yabut]

Mike, If you read what I said again, you will see that it was "Prof. Yabut has priorities -- both with time and with causes to espouse (and has lots of other issues on his plate this week)." Where I come from, "priorities" is the same as "preferences". My priorities do not include spending additional time on this issue today, AND because podcasts cannot be readily skimmed and their quality or relevance quickly scanned, they are at the very bottom of my "to do" list.

Also, I decided a few years ago not to pump recorded matter into my ears while I am taking a walk, or otherwise not directly attending to a particular subject matter. Thus, for all the reasons I have given here and elsewhere, podcasts are not a way for anyone to pass information on to me or to persuade me of their cause.

Finally, when someone says he does not have enough time he almost always means, "given my priorities, responsibilities, and the limits of the time-space dimension." As you know, my health also greatly limits how much work I can do in any one day, week or month. I reserve the right to control my time, schedule and preferences -- as I know you do for yourself.