Kentucky

I just read a post from a lawyer prognosticating about the legal claims that possibly could arise against a prominent golfer by those who use him in their advertising.  The blog post was embedded in the firm's web site.

Talk about hitting one out of the woods and into a sand trap.  The lawyer that is; not the golfer.

An advertiser who drops a celebrity is a far cry from suing the celebrity for damage to their product.  Regardless of the legal implications and issues, which business wants to pursue a claim and then let the world know the extent of their dependence on the public personna of a celebrity versus the power of their product?  How are you going to prove damages?  Disclosure of the books might keep the shareholders up at night!

Fringe companies might consider it, but could they have afforded  his endorsement in the first place?  Not hardly.

Mark this post, and that other post as much ado about nothing. 

Let the advertisers make their business decisions and move on; let the other women make their 60 seconds of fame and go away.  Rewarding infidelity with attention is not a good message for us to be sending those individuals lining up for their putative rewards for their earlier trysts.

Due to the lack of any real blogging guidelines by the KBA would such a post from a blog embedded in a lawyer's web site constitute advertising or legitimate legal commentary?

Since a lot of law firm blogs are now commenting on news and legal subjects directed to the public rather than other lawyers with postings that transcend journalism to advertisng, now might be a good time for the Kentucky Bar Association to take heed and give the legal profession some guidelines. 

I guess we are not out of the woods yet.