Comments on: Connecticut Takes a Swipe at Attorney Advertising

By: The Weekly Brief (Week Ending 11/14/2009) | The Inspired Solo

The Weekly Brief (Week Ending 11/14/2009) | The Inspired Solo — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:45:35 +0000

[...] Josh King/Avvo Blog: Connecticut Takes a Swipe at Attorney Advertising [...]

By: Zenas Zelotes

Zenas Zelotes — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:59:07 +0000

To those who would question my intents and/or the propriety of these proceedings, I would call your attentions to my recently filed Pre-Hearing Memorandum (link below). This Pre-Hearing memorandum represents my first comprehensive dismantling of Total Attorney’s legal arguments since the original complaint issued. It is rated “M” for mature (so if harsh words and adult subject matter offends you, you might want to skip this brief). Otherwise, bust out the popcorn (and enjoy).

That said: Say what you will (and whine as you may) but the reasoning and analysis in the Supplemental Brief is bulletproof.

Ladies and Gents … the hammer is about to fall.

Link:

http://zenaszelotes.com/id20.html

By: Kevin Dixler

Kevin Dixler — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:37:59 +0000

The challenge is that setting attorney advertising at variable premiums, depending upon how much they pay a non-attorney, creates a bidding war that does the public a disservice. It in no way reflects attorney competence, but rather how desperate an attorney may be to expand his practice or pay his or her bills. This bills may include a hefty advertising fee. Attorneys sometimes shun advertising because those referred by responsible colleagues are not as concerned about a reasonable sticker price retainers or fees.

We need to find a way to allow attorneys to demonstrate competence and secure appropriate compensation without prejudicing their current clients. Promoting larger debt among those who advertise, or entice, regardless of their competence, does the profession little good. Clarence Darrow once said law is a bad business, because when done right, you need to focus on your clients, not fixate on your debt.

The conception of the free consultation does not work in every area of law. An attorney may need more time to counsel some. The inability to properly regulate time due to the client by client facts due to a lack of reasonable compensation can create one heck of a miserable bar. If attorney’s are to maintain a positive mental attitude for themselves and their clients. If they are going to be able to distance themselves from legal problems, rather then become a part of them, then are going to need to feel that they can walk away when a client really can ill afford or does not want to reasonably afford an attorney.

Different practices require different policies, but a ‘hard hour practice’ deserves equitable compensation for a hard hour of respect and wisdom. The attorney who does not value his time arguably does a questionable job of representing him or herself, not to mention professionalism within the bar. Time management remains many attorneys’ worst nightmare.

There is a difference between responsible advertising and ‘advertising gone wild.’ It is easy for a marketing maven to entice and seduce the unwary into a vicious cycle. The methodology of a runner, who bears fruit for the highest bidder for reasons other than competence creates concern. How to responsibly address these professional concerns in a capitalist society is the challenge, when many disciplinary agencies are ill equipt to determine due diligence and incompetence in a particular area of law.

By: Lisha Fabris

Lisha Fabris — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:46:32 +0000

Thanks for the post. The problem is that, so often, the varying state Bars publish guidelines with regards to advertising but won’t make a stand. So we find that attorneys can be quite confused on whether or not they should participate. Your blog post brings light to the situation…let’s hope to find a resolution some day (soon).

By: Attorney Paul Begemann

Attorney Paul Begemann — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:35:20 +0000

It may be appropriate for the Rules Committee to consider amending the rules to allow (and thus regulate) sites such as this rather than attacking them with such a broad stroke. The rules really can’t keep up with the huge changes in the practice of law and most especially the use of the internet. But to fail to do so threatens to make the rules irrelevant or ignored; and forces attorneys to risk running afoul of them or not being able to properly market their practices.