Funny Lawyer Ads No Joke in N.Y.

Happy Independence Day! Daily news updates resume on Monday.

Law Firm Marketing

Posted Dec 4, 2007, 06:50 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

Law firm ads that show attorneys towering over skyscrapers and offering legal advice to space aliens obviously aren't meant to be taken seriously.

But New York's attorney general isn't finding them at all amusing, reports Portfolio magazine on its website. In a brief filed yesterday in response to a July decision by a federal judge invalidating new state restrictions on law firm advertising, attorney general Andrew Cuomo contends that the First Amendment protects only "truthful, factual, nonmisleading information relevant to the attorney's services," the article notes.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1977 that law firm advertising is permitted under the First Amendment, that ruling apparently isn't intended to extend to lawyers leaping tall buildings at a single bound, according to Cuomo. "It has never held that puffery, dramatizations, unverifiable statements of opinion, slogans, or promises, absurd portrayals, extreme use of humor, appeals to emotions, fears or prejudices, special effects, nicknames or other techniques in attorney advertising unrelated to rational decisions about selection of counsel are protected commercial speech."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by J.D. - 7 months, 18 hours, 21 minutes ago

SPEAKING OF ALIENS, a handful of law firms are uniting to defend illegal aliens FOR FREE!

The following law firms don’t believe that our immigration laws should exist: Dechert LLP, Wilson Sonsini, Skadden-Arps and Orrick, Herrington & Suttcliffe.

Read all about it: http://www.nbc11.com/news/14764402/detail.html
Posted by Y.Y. - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 2 minutes ago

I find the comment by J.D. (#1) to be a lot more interesting than the article above.

It is certainly a shame when Lawyers (who are supposed to defend the Constitution and uphold our laws) help people break our laws. Then, to add insult to injury, these types call this pro bono work.

It is a sad state of affairs when the defenders of American life end up aiding and abetting the systematic destruction of American life.

Look, I have no problem with ANYONE having access to a lawyer, but the notion that people would be lining up to provide FREE services to criminals to make a political statement is offensive to me.
Posted by Andrew L. Hughes - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 42 minutes ago

Our Immigration policy was created and stated in the Immigration Act of 1890. It needs to be updated, so that the immigrants we need and want can come here legally.I blame Congress for much of the so-called “illegals” that are here for allowing the condition to develop and grow.
Posted by J.M. - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 13 minutes ago

JD - So clearly, any attorney who has ever represented an accused murderer pro bono doesn’t believe that laws against murder should exist. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
Posted by Henry Blanco White - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 7 minutes ago

This used to be a country in which people were innocent until proven guilty. This used to be a country in which all defendants, not just the rich ones, were entitled to the assisance of counsel.
Posted by ML - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 4 minutes ago

Well said JM. JD, isn’t it also very sad that so many illegal aliens are the victims of crimes because the people doing it think that they can get away with victimizing a person who is less than a citizen? Do you believe that illegal aliens are less human than you are? We shouldn’t compromise broader humanitarian values just because someone doesn’t have a piece of paper that “proves” they are as worthy as we are.
Posted by Really? - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 2 minutes ago

You know, it’s statements like J.D.’s that start rumors. There is nothing in that article that says these lawyers “don’t believe that our immigration laws should exist.” What the article DOES say is that the constitution should apply equally to everyone and that Immigration Enforcement should not be allowed to contravene the constitution in search of illegal aliens. Using J.M.’s analogy, a murderer still has the protections of the constitution when searched, seized, and tried. An illegal immigrant does too.
Posted by DG - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 39 minutes ago

Back to the article: Cuomo’s comment, that advertising gimics are not protected commercial speech if done by lawyers, is probably not Constitutionally correct today and I’d bet my lunch money that the SCOTUS would have to rule that way. Ours is much more a business than a profession now, 30 years after the decision. How a lawyer (or anyone else) should advertise is a different issue than how he can advertise.
Posted by Seriously - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 5 hours, 2 minutes ago

I don’t know why “J.D.” felt it necessary to use this article as a stage for his/her political outrage, but it comes off poorly when you accuse lawyers of not “believ[ing] that our immigration laws should exist” and cite an article, which doesn’t support your position. Are you sure that you have a “J.D.”?
Posted by mb - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 16 minutes ago

So, this article is about free speech , and JD is expressing his/hers in the marketplace of ideas. Fortunately, everyone seems to recognize the merit of the comment. More importantly, the people who make decisions that impact these law firms highly value the importance of pro bono work, even when done for people you might not agree with like illegal aliens (who cause a lot less problems in this country than citizens) and alleged terrorists. A while back, some moron from the white house tried making big law lawyers look bad for representing alleged terrorists pro bono and it will no-doubt ruin his career. God bless.
Posted by Joseph Alfred - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 4 minutes ago

JD also misses thal immigration violations are civil in nature, not criminal, with only a few very rare exceptions. That means all those illegal aliens are NOT criminals any more than anyone who exceeds the speed limit is, or anyone who has ever committed negligence. There’s a very good reason why the violations are civil, and will stay civil-- the defendents are not entitled to government-paid representation in immigration court. Our immigration laws do need reform, but grandstanding about how all illegal aliens are necessarily criminals simply obuscates the very real policy issues involved.
Posted by PH - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 34 minutes ago

Concerning the original topic, the comments attributed to AG Cuomo to the effect that humorous “commercial” speech is not protected by the First Amendment reflects pomposity compounded by a dubious view of First Amendment.
Posted by MD - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 47 minutes ago

"JD” is truly a half-wit and/or a republican hack. He has many other nonsensical posts to his credit here.
Posted by MD - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 44 minutes ago

I’d also add he is frequently the very first to post on any article, and suspect he is attempting campaign of “grass roots” talking points republican activism.
Posted by Steve S. - 6 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

So… people who break immigration laws don’t deserve competent counsel. Does this mean no one deserves an attorney when they are caught not complying with the law? “Oh the audacity of Company X for blantantly not complying with the Clean Water Act… no counsel for you!!!!” I better go back to school if that’s the case…
Posted by David Lee - 6 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes ago

MD--What’s up? Why the personal attack? Attack the argument, not the person. Attacking the person shows that you cannot defend your position. Is it because you are not prepared or because the position is not defensible?
Does immigration law need changed? Yes. Until it is, what is written is the law. Why should someone be rewarded (drivers license, in-stat college tuition, etc) for violation of the law? Selective application of the law leads down a slippery slope of relativism.
Posted by Marc Cryer - 6 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 25 minutes ago

Immigration laws are for the most part not criminal laws and illegal immigrants are therefor not criminals they are held civilly not under criminal statutes.

Not sure how commercial speech isn’t protected by the 1st amendment either, maybe I missed that part of my constitutional law class. Obviously commercial speech can be regulated but these attacks on attorney’s ads seem unfair and unnecessary.
Posted by dg - 6 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes ago

The issue isn’t that Biglaw is providing representation for law-breakers (civil or criminal), so the analogy of defending other felons doesn’t work. The issue is that they are doing it to make a political statement about the immigration law issue. Not as altruistic as defending a rapist. Or could it be that their best clients use the underground workforce themselves?

and FTR JD’s post was innocuous; it was YY’s next post that was inflammatory and drew most of the fire.
Posted by Charles Silver - 6 months, 3 weeks, 4 hours, 36 minutes ago

Even assuming Cuomo’s right about the scope of constitutional protection for commercial speech by attorneys, it hardly follows that his efforts to control unprotected speech are warranted. There is simply no empirical evidence that amusing or even outrageous lawyer ads harm the public. If someone knows of a study showing otherwise, please let me know. Probably (emphasize “probably") ads by doctors and others promising miraculous improvements in health or looks are more dangerous, yet they abound.

On a different note, how JD got from this article to pro bono representation of anyone is impossible to figure.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Law Firm Marketing