Legal Marketing
NY PI Lawyers Ready New Ads
Posted Jul 27, 2007, 07:57 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Don’t blame a New York State Bar Association task force for the advertising rules struck down by a federal judge.
None of the overturned rules had been proposed by the task force, the New York Law Journal reports. Instead, they were all additions by four presiding justices of New York Appellate Division departments. The justices used task force recommendations to develop the rules, implemented on Feb. 1.
Only a few of the rules bit the dust on Friday. Provisions held unconstitutional include bans on nicknames that suggest an ability to get results, portrayals of judges, portrayals of lawyers exhibiting characteristics unrelated to competence, and client testimonials about pending matters.
State bar President Kathryn Grant Madigan told the legal newspaper that the overturned rules are most important to plaintiffs lawyers. "To the personal injury lawyer on Main Street, this is a bread-and-butter issue,” she said.
The plaintiffs firm that challenged the rules, Alexander & Catalano, has taped new ads that feature client testimonials and the tagline “heavy hitters.” Unless a stay is issued, they will hit the airwaves on Monday.
Related Stories
- ‘Profile’ Investigations By FBI Being Considered at DOJ
Jul 3, 2008, 02:04 pm CDT - Judge v. Judge: Banned Florida Jurist Sues Courthouse Chief
Jul 3, 2008, 01:31 pm CDT - Texas Judge and Law Prof in Civil Rights Case is Arrested
Jul 3, 2008, 12:10 pm CDT - New ‘Rule of Law Index’ Will Measure World Justice
Jul 3, 2008, 10:56 am CDT
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by David Giacalone - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 11 hours, 48 minutes ago
The New York State Bar Association attempt to distance itself from the unconstitutional ad rules that it inspired is misleading and cowardly. In 2005, NYSBA declared war on lawyer advertising in the name of the image/dignity of the profession. (See, e.g., http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/11/18/more-dignity-police-ny-bar-disses-lawyer-advertising/ ). In 2006, its Advertising Task Force called for far more restrictive rules than were eventually adopted by the NYS Judiciary—demanding that ads not only be “true, accurate and clearâ€, but also “fair,†“rational” and “relevant to the thoughtful selection of counsel.” In a press release dated Jan. 4, 2007, NYSBA tried to take credit for the toned-down final version of the rules. (see http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2007/01/06/new-york-lawyer-ad-rules-retention-and-more/ ) If Bar president Madigan really means “we went too far and our initial proposals were unconstitutional, unnecessary, and insulting to the intelligence of the public and the integrity of the profession,” she should say so, rather than merely trying to cover the Association’s rear end.
Posted by David Giacalone - 10 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 44 minutes ago
I have looked in depth at this topic in my f/k/a weblog post titled “after Alexander v. Cahill, where does NYSBA stand on lawyer advertising?”
See http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2007/08/11/after-alexander-v-cahill-where-does-nysba-stand-on-lawyer-advertising/