Legal News

Provocative Lawyer Advertising: Fair or Foul?

By Nathan Koppel

When it comes to advertising, lawyers have it harder than some other industries. That’s largely because a sizable sector of the bar generally regards ads as cheap and tawdry. As a result, state regulators have cobbled together a fairly restrictive — some might say amusing — set of rules on what lawyer ads can and can’t say. Click here for the WSJ story, and here for a WSJ video featuring the alien ad discussed in the story.

To a large degree, the story focuses on Florida. The Sunshine State prohibits slogans, jingles and “manipulative” visual depictions, among many other no-no’s. The Florida bar also has a thing about certain animals. Pit bulls are verboten (as was the advertisement pictured), and the bar has also stricken ads that used images of a “tiger roaring without sound” and a “shark in attack mode.”

What’s a personal injury attorney in Florida to do? Well, how about sue? Jacksonville plaintiffs lawyer William Harrell Jr. is suing the Florida bar, claiming its ad rules violate his free speech rights. Litigation is also the solution of choice for Syracuse, N.Y., attorney James Alexander, whose colorful ads the Law Blog discussed last year. He is suing the New York bar over its strict ad rules. Last year, a New York federal judge sided with Alexander. The case is on appeal.

Lawyer-advertisers claim that lively TV and radio spots inform the public and help lesser-known lawyers compete for business. Readers, what do you think? Should ads be closely regulated or should the market decide what’s fair game?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on February 06, 2008 (boomark / email).