Page 1 of 1

T1B Attorneys . . . . . . . Thoughts?

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:01 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Seems to me to be a step in the right direction. I agree with the Supreme Court's Bates ruling in theory, but what we see today is getting far afield of anything contemplated under Bates.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20 ... 043625.asp
Lawyers' misleading ads overruled


Catchy nicknames, embellished testimonials banned in state's extensive revision of advertising guidelines

By MICHAEL BEEBE
News Staff Reporter
6/16/2006

Say goodbye to William Shatner hawking the services of lawyers on TV.
Ditto to lawyers who use catchy nicknames like Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro, the Rochester attorney suspended for false advertising and soliciting a client still in a coma.

And you don't have to worry about seeing the oversized head of your local personal injury lawyer popping up on your computer screen.

Bans on computer pop-ups, misleading testimonials and catchy nicknames are part of sweeping revisions of advertising guidelines set for adoption by the state's Unified Court System.

But the bane of most motorists, those ubiquitous billboards with the faces of personal injury lawyers looking down upon major highways, goes unaddressed in the new directives.

However, lawyers who use billboards and other means of advertising to solicit clients will have to clean up their claims, limit their boasts and stick to the services they offer.

"These new rules will help regulate lawyer advertising so that consumers are protected against inappropriate solicitations or potentially misleading ads, as well as overly aggressive marketing," the state's chief administrative judge, Jonathan Lippman, said as the regulations were released.

Eugene F. Pigott Jr., the former Erie County attorney who is presiding justice of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Rochester, said the changes are long overdue.

"It became quite obvious that what was supposed to be something advising the public of the services available in a legal firm had now washed over to a total solicitation," he said.

Among practices also banned by the new rules, approved for public comment this week by Pigott and the three other presiding justices of the Appellate Division, are these:
  • Using testimonials by current clients.
  • Using claims that create an expectation of results or compare a lawyer's services with other attorneys'.
  • Saying that "no fee will be charged if no money is recovered" without disclosing that clients will be responsible for other charges no matter what the outcome. Pigott said the rules, by necessity, are directed at the aggressive advertising done by personal injury attorneys who appear on roadsides, phone books and television airwaves.


"All the lawyers who do matrimonial, or estate, or other types of law are being tarred by the same brush, by these overly aggressive attorneys," he said. "It's not fair, it's not a fair characterization, it's not what most lawyers do."

Besides restricting what lawyers can say to solicit clients, the new rules also lay down stricter guidelines on when attorneys can approach potential clients after serious accidents.

Lawyers pursuing clients for personal injury or wrongful death claims now will have to wait at least 30 days after an accident, under the new rules, unless there are court deadlines. Then a lawyer has to wait 15 days.

Besides banning actors like Shatner from hawking firms, the new rules also will prohibit the practice of lawyers appearing in courtrooms during ads.

Local attorney William Mattar, whose "Hurt in a Car" ads appear frequently on local television, nearly always appears in a courtroom setting.

All future ads also have to be filed with the local attorney disciplinary committee for review.

The new rules, based on recommendations by the New York State Bar and a committee appointed by the administrative board of the state courts, will have a 90-day public comment period before their scheduled adoption on Sept. 15.


e-mail: mbeebe@buffnews.com

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:04 pm
by Dinsdale
The thread title is an oxymoron...just sayin'.

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:06 pm
by Wolfman
I remember those Jim "the Hammer" ads on
TV back in CNY--amazing !!
Down here we get the soft sell approach---
"for the people"---
"Injured in an accident ?? Call us" !!

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:10 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
After rereading the article, I have to comment on this:
Besides restricting what lawyers can say to solicit clients, the new rules also lay down stricter guidelines on when attorneys can approach potential clients after serious accidents.

Lawyers pursuing clients for personal injury or wrongful death claims now will have to wait at least 30 days after an accident, under the new rules, unless there are court deadlines. Then a lawyer has to wait 15 days.
Uhhh, there are always court deadlines. They're commonly referred to as "statutes of limitations." Of course, if you happen to be suing the state and/or a municipality, there are certain conditions precedent to suit which must be met in an extremely short time frame, usually 90 days or in some cases less.

Let's hope that the author was referring to this. Otherwise, it appears that the Appellate Division created a pretty big loophole. I would hope they're smarter than that.

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:02 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Wolfman wrote:I remember
back in CNY
Yeah, I'll bet no one saw that one coming.

Re: T1B Attorneys . . . . . . . Thoughts?

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:54 am
by Rich Fader
Lawyers' misleading ads overruled
Lawyers lie?

No. Way.

:twisted:

:lol:

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:05 am
by TenTallBen
If I knew my lawyer posted on a message board such as this, I think I might have to fire his ass with the quickness.

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:35 am
by recockulous
So what if they they can't give themselves nicknames. Several of the bottom feeders out here in Arizona changed their names... it helps if you can call yourself "Lyon" or "Wolff" and have the picture of a statuesque lion or wolf in your back-of-the-phonebook or side-of-the-bus or top-of-the-table-in-the-strip-club advertisement.

Or, in Arizona, you just change your name to the instant moneymaker: Goldwater. I know 3 people (not all lawyers) who did that. :meds:

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:10 pm
by XXXL
I suppose that our profession ought to stay away from the have no shame image car salesman generally portray on their commercials.

As to the Bates decision, that I also fully agree with in principle, and as to where this new set of rules goes, I'm sure other jurisdictions will be observing from afar...

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:15 pm
by BSmack
No more "Heavy Hitters" ads?

:lol:

I'm sure they'll find some other way to feed off the bottom of humanity.

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:30 pm
by Derron
Amazing.....an attorney posting and trying to get his homies to comment.....

Don't you have a board for attorneys, take your shit there..... probably called :

"Fuck the poor sons of bitches in the ass before the next attorney does"

or

"Rape, Pillage and Ethics"

or

"Making money with out working"

or

" Spending Eternity in Hell for fucking a fellow human"

Fuckin scumbags.....

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:16 am
by Jack
I'm no lawyer... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!

and I think there are more important things to concern yourself with..

ImageImageImageImage

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:01 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
BSmack wrote:No more "Heavy Hitters" ads?

:lol:

I'm sure they'll find some other way to feed off the bottom of humanity.
Since you brought that up, this story is appropos.

My 7-year-old, who I think was either 5 or 6 at the time, was watching TV when an ad for Cellino & Barnes (this was before Ross Cellino got suspended) came on. Excited, he summoned me to the TV immediately, and once I got there he pointed and said, "Look, daddy, it's the heavy hitters!" I immediately started laughing.

But then I thought about it and realized that, in a way, he had a point: there is a certain interchangeability among what JSC refers to as "TV lawyers."

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:12 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Jsc810 wrote:TV lawyers are a joke. The defense lawyers I used to work with would laugh when we'd receive a case filed by one, because we realized that it would never go to trial and that they would accept a low-ball settlement.
In fairness to those lawyers, I should point out that lawyers are ethically bound to convey any settlement offer to their client. Of course, lawyers can give advice as to whether to accept/reject a settlement offer, but the final decision always rests with the client.

A few points on that. First, I cannot say with complete confidence that all TV lawyers are complying with those ethical rules, although some probably are. Second, I think the TV lawyers pick off a disproportionate share of destitute clients. To some of these people, $50,000 probably sounds like a huge sum of money, even if their damages should bring ten times that amount. A third point to consider is that many of these lawyers are working on volume, so turning over files as quickly as possible becomes their priority, although their clients' needs suffer as a result.

Having said all of that, it's rapidly getting to the point, at least around here, that it's all but impossible to pick up any plaintiff's personal injury work unless you advertise on TV. I suspect that the proposed rule changes are intended, at least in part, to put the kibosh on that development.