I was watching an old rerun of Green Acres where dimwitted wife Lisa started an ad campaign for her husband's law firm. The response by hubby Oliver was to "stop it" as he could be disbarred for advertising his legal profession. Green Acres aired mainly in the 1960's/ Also the fact that up until 30 years ago, we never heard the ads that are now on TV, on billboards, and even radio that we hear now.
I am just curious to know what is the deal as many advertise including one here in the Southeast who not only brags about his attorney's success rates, but tells everyone his political beliefs and when he wants the public to stand up for what he believes in he makes his ad about that and not anything a client would want in an attorney. Yet all being they are in business means that they cannot be disbarred or else they would not be in media or out and about promoting themselves.
There's this little thing called the First Amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the late 1970s. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_v._State_Bar_of_Arizona for a quick summary.
Advertising by lawyers, and many other licensed professionals, is subject to somewhat fussier rules than most other advertising, but basically it's allowed.
The First Amendment does not mean you can buy advertising for anything you want. The precedent has been clearly established by bans on tobacco ads today and bans on prescription medication commercials in the past. Paying to speak is different that speaking for free.
Because Captain Kirk needs work?
Well, should the AMA kick out doctors who advertise in order to reach out? :confused:
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 11, 2017, 09:48:10 PM
The First Amendment does not mean you can buy advertising for anything you want. The precedent has been clearly established by bans on tobacco ads today and bans on prescription medication commercials in the past. Paying to speak is different that speaking for free.
No it isn't. That's why restrictions on campaign contributions are generally being found to be in violation of the First Amendment with increasing regularity.
Of course, broadcast media has always been treated differently than print media (which is wrong, in my opinion; the only responsibility the government should have in regulating broadcast outlets is frequency allocation) but I'm surprised the tobacco companies never really pressed First Amendment issues. Liquor advertising on television is really only a recent development. I remember for years that there were all kinds of beer commercials on TV, but no liquor ads.
The prohibition against attorneys advertising was a product of the bar associations (generally regulated by the equivalent of Kentucky's Administrative Office of the Courts) in the states. Lawyers were just as forbidden from advertising in print or outdoor media as they were broadcast media -- other than, of course, being able to buy ads in Yellow Pages merely to note their office address and phone number; they could do that but couldn't advertise a specialty.
I always thought that they originally could not advertise was because its was considered to be a conflict of interest to do so.
The wikipedia article sums up the issue pretty well. The far-left ABA (of which most lawyers are not members) writes the ethics rules for lawyers, which most state bars (which lawyers are forced to join and thus fund the far-left ABA) rubber stamp claimed the rule was about "dignity". It was really about preventing price competition.
Sadly we have gotten away from the very useful type ad that Mr.Bates wanted to do, to the sickening bottom feeders that want to use junk science to prove everything causes cancer and want you to call some toll free number (without ever saying they are not even lawyers in you state, or that you will be put in a "class action" and they will get a quick settlement where the lawyers will get millions and the clients pennies). But free speech is free speech. I would love to see a lawyer who advertized prices and said what services he did.
As to liquor, actually it is self-regulating. There never was a government rule in it. The liquor companies avoided TV for years by a form of "gentlemen's agreement".
If you want to see restrictions on commercial speech taken too far, look to Australia, where the loonies make the companies cover the majority of the box in over-the-top warnings and only allow the brand name in a plain font and standard color (brown).
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on July 11, 2017, 09:58:26 PM
Well, should the AMA kick out doctors who advertise in order to reach out? :confused:
The AMA being a private organization, it isn't restricted by the First Amendment. But it is subject to the antitrust laws. The FTC (in an office where I once worked, before I moved to another antitrust shop focused on mergers and acquisitions) spent a lot of time challenging, usually successfully, ethical rules of the AMA and other professional associations that restricted competition among their members, including among others restrictions on advertising.
Personally, I'm not crazy about much of the professional advertising out there, certainly less entertaining than sleazy "male enhancement" ads (yes, the FTC went hard after the "Smilin' Bob" Enzyte ads, much as I liked them). But I'm much more sympathetic to ads by the "new kid on the block" who was being frozen out by existing competitors and had no better way to let the public know that there was a new option for local consumers. Also, blogs by law firms and others presenting useful information about current legal topics and in the process showing off their professional skills -- something some bar associations were uncomfortable with as "advertising".
Lawyers have a lot of ethics rules they're required to follow that other businesses don't. For instance, if they take your case they're required not to abandon you in the middle of it. Limiting advertising to contact information in the phone book used to be one of those rules.
I disagree with the notion that advertising anything anywhere is protected by the first amendment. For one thing, advertising is the voice of corporations, not individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to apply to individuals. I've read The Rights of Man, The Federalist Papers and countless biographies of Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et al and I never once ran across the idea that these men were concerned with protecting the free speech rights of corporations. They spoke of rights of men, usually propertied men, but nevertheless men and not corporations. Advertising existed at the time, but I don't see any evidence that any of the founders intended that it should be open to any product, produced for any purpose, advertised in any place without restriction. The idea is absurd!
I wish someone would smack that smug glen lerner douchebag.
"Call 222- twenty two, twenty two!"
Quote from: berberry on July 12, 2017, 01:48:02 PM
I disagree with the notion that advertising anything anywhere is protected by the first amendment.
The idea is absurd!
The Supreme Court disagrees.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products 463 U.S. 60
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island 517 U.S. 484
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. PSC 477 U.S. 557
Quote from: berberry on July 12, 2017, 01:48:02 PM
I disagree with the notion that advertising anything anywhere is protected by the first amendment. For one thing, advertising is the voice of corporations, not individuals.
The solo practitioner law firms would beg to disagree. So would the New York Times Corporation, with respect to its freedom-of-the-press First Amendment rights.
Just because corporations became more widespread after the 1780s doesn't mean they aren't covered by the Bill of Rights.
Quote from: berberry on July 12, 2017, 01:48:02 PM
I disagree with the notion that advertising anything anywhere is protected by the first amendment. For one thing, advertising is the voice of corporations, not individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to apply to individuals. I've read The Rights of Man, The Federalist Papers and countless biographies of Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et al and I never once ran across the idea that these men were concerned with protecting the free speech rights of corporations. They spoke of rights of men, usually propertied men, but nevertheless men and not corporations. Advertising existed at the time, but I don't see any evidence that any of the founders intended that it should be open to any product, produced for any purpose, advertised in any place without restriction. The idea is absurd!
You mean even an individual advertising an item or service for sale?
Quote from: oscar on July 12, 2017, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: berberry on July 12, 2017, 01:48:02 PM
I disagree with the notion that advertising anything anywhere is protected by the first amendment. For one thing, advertising is the voice of corporations, not individuals.
The solo practitioner law firms would beg to disagree. So would the New York Times Corporation, with respect to its freedom-of-the-press First Amendment rights.
Just because corporations became more widespread after the 1780s doesn't mean they aren't covered by the Bill of Rights.
Corporations are nothing more than a group of people with a common interest. They don't differ from civic clubs, labor unions, trade associations, political action committees or any other group of individuals banding together to speak louder with many unified voices than with one solo voice. This misguided notion that "corporations aren't people" is just that -- misguided. No one ever said corporations are people. They are, however, groups of people. Why should groups of people not have the same rights to express themselves as individuals?
I'm all for this if this gets rid of the Morgan & Morgan ads I get in Boston 4 times an hour. They aren't even located within 1000 miles of me...
Quote from: SectorZ on July 12, 2017, 03:17:19 PM
I'm all for this if this gets rid of the Morgan & Morgan ads I get in Boston 4 times an hour. They aren't even located within 1000 miles of me...
The ones that burn me is the ones on daytime TV for a set of fake named firms (Socolove/ Goldberg and Persky/ others, they are all really one firm) who are only lawyers in Pennsylvania that have more and more fantastic claims about various healthful drugs, foods, products, medical procedures and so on, all of which supposedly cause cancer or whatever.
Note that the firm was caught using fake evidence years ago. Its in-house doctor diagnosed a bunch of people with one fatal cancer. He forgot to take good notes, because decades later he diagnosed the same people with another one.
While lawyer, and everybody else, should be allowed to advertize, they should only be allowed to do so in states they actually practice in, and should only be allowed to make scientific claims that are actually at least arguabably scientific.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 12, 2017, 03:17:19 PM
I'm all for this if this gets rid of the Morgan & Morgan ads I get in Boston 4 times an hour. They aren't even located within 1000 miles of me...
Morgan& Morgan have an office in Boston.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 12, 2017, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: berberry on July 12, 2017, 01:48:02 PM
I disagree with the notion that advertising anything anywhere is protected by the first amendment. For one thing, advertising is the voice of corporations, not individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to apply to individuals. I've read The Rights of Man, The Federalist Papers and countless biographies of Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et al and I never once ran across the idea that these men were concerned with protecting the free speech rights of corporations. They spoke of rights of men, usually propertied men, but nevertheless men and not corporations. Advertising existed at the time, but I don't see any evidence that any of the founders intended that it should be open to any product, produced for any purpose, advertised in any place without restriction. The idea is absurd!
You mean even an individual advertising an item or service for sale?
Quote from: oscar on July 12, 2017, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: berberry on July 12, 2017, 01:48:02 PM
I disagree with the notion that advertising anything anywhere is protected by the first amendment. For one thing, advertising is the voice of corporations, not individuals.
The solo practitioner law firms would beg to disagree. So would the New York Times Corporation, with respect to its freedom-of-the-press First Amendment rights.
Just because corporations became more widespread after the 1780s doesn't mean they aren't covered by the Bill of Rights.
Corporations are nothing more than a group of people with a common interest. They don't differ from civic clubs, labor unions, trade associations, political action committees or any other group of individuals banding together to speak louder with many unified voices than with one solo voice. This misguided notion that "corporations aren't people" is just that -- misguided. No one ever said corporations are people. They are, however, groups of people. Why should groups of people not have the same rights to express themselves as individuals?
I'll answer this question since no one else has.
No one has an issue with Walmart stating a preference for a political candidate. If Walmart wanted to hang a framed photograph of Donald Trump in every store, no one would care or try to stop them. Some people may not shop there anymore but there's no legal recourse that you can take to stop them. I can put a sign in my yard, Walmart can put a sign in theirs, no big deal, right?
The problem comes with the idea that money = speech. People forget that
Citizens United didn't just deal with corporations, it dealt with every type of organization (including the kind that you mention). The idea that "money = speech" gives a disproportionate amount of influence to those who have more money. Campaign spending limits are meant to mitigate that influence.
The idea that corporations are just a "group of people banding together" has been rejected by the Courts. Corporations do have extra rights that are separate from the people who "own" them. There's no denying the legal reality that "corporate personhood" is enshrined in our jurisprudence. You may equate Walmart's rights with those of my rec league softball team but the Courts haven't.
Quote from: spooky on July 13, 2017, 11:08:17 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 12, 2017, 03:17:19 PM
I'm all for this if this gets rid of the Morgan & Morgan ads I get in Boston 4 times an hour. They aren't even located within 1000 miles of me...
Morgan& Morgan have an office in Boston.
Oh, I know they do now, but they're based out of Tampa. Nothing like appealing to Bostonians with people who have deep southern accents that oddly seem out of place for Tampa as it is. Of course, they did recently hire someone from the Kennedy family, and touted that as if that matters to any of us.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 13, 2017, 01:44:09 PM
Quote from: spooky on July 13, 2017, 11:08:17 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 12, 2017, 03:17:19 PM
I'm all for this if this gets rid of the Morgan & Morgan ads I get in Boston 4 times an hour. They aren't even located within 1000 miles of me...
Morgan& Morgan have an office in Boston.
Oh, I know they do now, but they're based out of Tampa. Nothing like appealing to Bostonians with people who have deep southern accents that oddly seem out of place for Tampa as it is. Of course, they did recently hire someone from the Kennedy family, and touted that as if that matters to any of us.
Kentucky's former Speaker of the House (God, how I love typing that!), and before that, attorney general, is employed by Morgan & Morgan. He practiced law with another firm during his first tenure in the House of Representatives, then had to give that up when he was elected attorney general. He chose to run as a lieutenant governor candidate four years later and lost, so he pulled some strings and got his handpicked successor in the House to not run again so he could get his old seat back. After he quit being AG, he went to work for Morgan & Morgan, which is indeed headquartered in Florida but has some deep Kentucky ties. They used to advertise the fact that the former AG worked for them. I despise him so intensely that I'd never hire Morgan & Morgan for any purpose. And those feelings intensified when they announced the hiring of JFK Jr. (or is it RFK Jr.), which they heavily advertise now.
Funny that since the former Kentucky Speaker of the House lost his re-election bid last year and is thankfully out of public service, Morgan
2 doesn't advertise his presence with the firm anymore. Guess he's a liability now.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 11, 2017, 09:14:01 AM
I was watching an old rerun of Green Acres where dimwitted wife Lisa started an ad campaign for her husband's law firm. The response by hubby Oliver was to "stop it" as he could be disbarred for advertising his legal profession. Green Acres aired mainly in the 1960's/ Also the fact that up until 30 years ago, we never heard the ads that are now on TV, on billboards, and even radio that we hear now.
I am just curious to know what is the deal as many advertise including one here in the Southeast who not only brags about his attorney's success rates, but tells everyone his political beliefs and when he wants the public to stand up for what he believes in he makes his ad about that and not anything a client would want in an attorney. Yet all being they are in business means that they cannot be disbarred or else they would not be in media or out and about promoting themselves.
Different times. Different rules. There was a Supreme Court case that explicitly gave lawyers the right to advertise. Jacoby and Meyer was ubiquitous about 3 years later.
I just today saw an old video of Fred and Barney advertising cigarettes!
I am not sure that hard liquor ads were ever banned. However, television stations didn't have to accept ads for them.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2017, 02:49:10 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 13, 2017, 01:44:09 PM
Quote from: spooky on July 13, 2017, 11:08:17 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 12, 2017, 03:17:19 PM
I'm all for this if this gets rid of the Morgan & Morgan ads I get in Boston 4 times an hour. They aren't even located within 1000 miles of me...
Morgan& Morgan have an office in Boston.
Oh, I know they do now, but they're based out of Tampa. Nothing like appealing to Bostonians with people who have deep southern accents that oddly seem out of place for Tampa as it is. Of course, they did recently hire someone from the Kennedy family, and touted that as if that matters to any of us.
Kentucky's former Speaker of the House (God, how I love typing that!), and before that, attorney general, is employed by Morgan & Morgan. He practiced law with another firm during his first tenure in the House of Representatives, then had to give that up when he was elected attorney general. He chose to run as a lieutenant governor candidate four years later and lost, so he pulled some strings and got his handpicked successor in the House to not run again so he could get his old seat back. After he quit being AG, he went to work for Morgan & Morgan, which is indeed headquartered in Florida but has some deep Kentucky ties. They used to advertise the fact that the former AG worked for them. I despise him so intensely that I'd never hire Morgan & Morgan for any purpose. And those feelings intensified when they announced the hiring of JFK Jr. (or is it RFK Jr.), which they heavily advertise now.
Funny that since the former Kentucky Speaker of the House lost his re-election bid last year and is thankfully out of public service, Morgan2 doesn't advertise his presence with the firm anymore. Guess he's a liability now.
It's RFK Jr.
JFK Jr. wasn't available - he died in 1999.
Morgan and Morgan is based in Orlando. John Morgan was the main force behind Florida's medical Marijuana campaign.
Rumor is he is running for Governor of Fkorida or US Senator.
LGMS428
Oh I do realize the courts disagree with me. You don't have to go so far back to show that, Citizens United is more than enough to show it. My point was that the founders never intended it. Conservatives often appeal to what they call "original intent" when deciding what should and should not be considered constitutional. I have never seen the first clue that the founders intended corporations be treated like individuals.
As for corporations being groups of individuals, that could be dangerous logic because, if courts accept it, then any law meant to apply to one or more corporations could be seen as a bill of attainder.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 12, 2017, 02:25:23 PM
This misguided notion that "corporations aren't people" is just that -- misguided. No one ever said corporations are people. They are, however, groups of people. Why should groups of people not have the same rights to express themselves as individuals?
Because said corporations put a lot of restrictions on when and what their employees are allowed to say and advocate for. Can you blame them? Not at all, but most people certainly don't have the same right to express themselves in the workplace as they do outside of it.
I wish they'd disbar lawyers for advertising. I am getting sick and tired of seeing the Bart-Durham commercials in Nashville.
Quote from: jwolfer on July 13, 2017, 04:17:53 PM
Morgan and Morgan is based in Orlando. John Morgan was the main force behind Florida's medical Marijuana campaign.
Rumor is he is running for Governor of Fkorida or US Senator.
LGMS428
Rumor also has it that he visits Rachels Gentleman's Club in Orlando/Cassleberry frequently and is a heavy boozer as well. I did google him and his license to practice law was once suspended for contempt in court as he argued with a judge when told to sustain his objection. Then he lies about his firm being 30 years old, when in fact he just recently started his firm with his wife,and three sons. Before that he was part of Morgan, Colling, and Gilbert who fired his ass and took on two new partners probably cause the guy is too much with his over advertising.
As far as being governor of Florida, being Rick Scott was also a private citizen who ran for governor and got the job and of course the recent Washington shocker of a private citizen also becoming POTUS he could very well be (and get) to be our next governor. Also with Scott being pro tax cuts to the rich who are bringing developers galore to a state that is already have more than enough sprawl, and Morgan being a Democrat which is pro environment and high tax supporters he is a shoe in as many of us Floridians are tired of having to leave for work a minute earlier each year from the added traffic the developers brings to our already crowded roads.
Quote from: jwolfer on July 13, 2017, 04:17:53 PM
Morgan and Morgan is based in Orlando. John Morgan was the main force behind Florida's medical Marijuana campaign.
Rumor is he is running for Governor of Fkorida or US Senator.
LGMS428
They are in Nashville as well. Them and Bart Durham have the most annoying commercials.
These are the gold standards for lawyer ads:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr2gdPY-88w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-JdG8aaUyc
Quote from: roadman65 on July 15, 2017, 08:37:05 AM
Rumor also has it that he visits Rachels Gentleman's Club in Orlando/Cassleberry frequently and is a heavy boozer as well.
[/quote]
Sounds like he has a lot in common with his Kentucky counterpart who works for him.
It's been in the news here in Orlando he has been arrested numerous times for DUI's. Hey if our former US President can be popular by not having a traditional marriage, so could this guy too and probably is getting more cases because of his partying and womanizing in strip clubs.
http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/09/behind-cellino-barnes-breakup-cellino-warm-fuzzy-partner/ (http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/09/behind-cellino-barnes-breakup-cellino-warm-fuzzy-partner/)
http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/27/cellin-barnes-divorce-papers-unsealed-describe-internal-dissention/ (http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/27/cellin-barnes-divorce-papers-unsealed-describe-internal-dissention/)
http://buffalonews.com/2017/05/13/cellino-barnes-breakup-reverberates-beyond-buffalo/ (http://buffalonews.com/2017/05/13/cellino-barnes-breakup-reverberates-beyond-buffalo/)
Well Cellino and Barnes are known nationwide for their commercial but the problem here is that Their Main offices in New York State are facing a major scandal and the Rest of the nation are unaware of this scandal
http://buffalonews.com/2017/05/13/cellino-barnes-breakup-reverberates-beyond-buffalo/
http://buffalonews.com/2017/05/11/argument-law-partners-daughter-led-strife-cellino-barnes-firm/
Apparently this Lawfirm is going through internal dysfunction.
One place that Morgan & Morgan won't advertise in Orlando is Magic 107.7 between Thanksgiving and Christmas as that station plays Christmas songs and I am guessing that he does not like that particular music and refuses to sponsor it.
Lately I have not heard his ads on radio because I listen to a station that has no ads period, but now he has got a picture of his two dogs Emma and Molly on the back of some Orlando Lynx buses along with him smiling on the sides of the same bus, but at least I don't have to hear his annoying rants which he typically does in one of his commercials.
A couple years ago, I was involved with the libertarian party of Illinois, trying to help get our candidates on the ballot. Anyway, I was talking to our attorney general candidate, and he spent some time with a personal injury attorney office, and he was saying that with his low position there, it was like working at a sweatshop. They had to file a certain number of lawsuits per day, or risk getting fired. He was saying that they were pushed like you wouldn't believe. I wish I remembered the rest of the conversation, because it was extremely eye opening.
It its done on a contingient basis yes, because that is how they make a living. Yes, it puts pressure on the low people even though they want to make money too, however with the added pressure from above making sure you do so, I am sure, makes it more difficult.
Quote from: inkyatari on July 17, 2017, 09:11:41 AM
A couple years ago, I was involved with the libertarian party of Illinois, trying to help get our candidates on the ballot. Anyway, I was talking to our attorney general candidate, and he spent some time with a personal injury attorney office, and he was saying that with his low position there, it was like working at a sweatshop. They had to file a certain number of lawsuits per day, or risk getting fired. He was saying that they were pushed like you wouldn't believe. I wish I remembered the rest of the conversation, because it was extremely eye opening.
I have a friend who was fired with no notice because he wasn't bringing in enough money for his firm. Being a lawyer is one profession that people assume is stable and high paying but it's surprisingly not that way for a lot of people.
This genius:
www.wkyt.com/content/news/WKYT-Interactive-Where-in-the-world-is-Eric-C-Conn-430925703.html (http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/WKYT-Interactive-Where-in-the-world-is-Eric-C-Conn-430925703.html)
had billboards and local cable ads throughout eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia, proclaiming himself "Mr. Social Security". Like most in that junk science based area of the law, he had an in-house doctor who found everybody disabled. He went a step further and bribed the judges. Ripped off Social Security and KY and WV workers comp insurers for darn near a billion in lifetime benefits. Until exposed by the Wall Street Journal.
Fantasticly, despite the fact that he had traveled outside the country over 150 times in 10 years, had dozens of bank accounts off shore and had bragged to his staff that he had "made a deal with Castro" the judge gave him bail. Promptly headed north on I-75, probably to the Cincy airport. Last seen on a survelence cam at a gas station in New Mexico, probably heading south. If you can sneak in so easily, how hard is it to go in the other direction?
Another reason why lawyers should not advertise is I think they are driving doctors cost up as they charge the patient for the higher malpractice insurance for all the lawsuits brought against the medical industry. Thus making the insurance companies deny many claims to avoid payouts more than ever. They put it in the people's minds to sue whenever possible and people who would normally not sue because of Judeo-Christian values of forgiveness and acceptance that the world is unfair, are suing because of the $ promised.
We have Dan Newlin in Orlando, a former detective now attorney, who has his ads using former clients testifying the amount of money they received because Dan won them the settlement. Of course that will make sure that everyone injured in an accident will go over everything with a fine tooth comb and look for anything they could use to sue hearing actual amounts from other suing parties.
If we had no commercials influencing people to sue, the courts would we be less crowded and being paying less to go to the doctors and get more for our premiums and the need for universal healthcare would have been less of the issue it was when it a few years ago and now still.
My favorite lawyer ads have always been the ones that claim "If we don't win your case, you won't have to pay us." Which roughly translates to "We'll do everything possible to win your case, even if our tactics may be considered legally or ethically questionable."
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2017, 11:33:43 AM
My favorite lawyer ads have always been the ones that claim "If we don't win your case, you won't have to pay us." Which roughly translates to "We'll do everything possible to win your case, even if our tactics may be considered legally or ethically questionable."
Not really. It just means that they receive a good chunk of the settlement or judgment.
My guess is that if the Law Firm is huge enough the senior partner gets rich from his hired help winning the case. So they will most likely get 33 % of your winnings with half going to the head and the other half going to the body who did the work.
Makes you wonder if that is how most of Congress got rich before they got elected taking cuts from their clients via junior partners and hired hands.
http://nypost.com/2017/06/28/cellino-barnes-have-been-at-war-for-over-a-year/ (http://nypost.com/2017/06/28/cellino-barnes-have-been-at-war-for-over-a-year/)
Celino and Barnes and the Dysfunction continues
http://nypost.com/2017/05/10/cellino-sues-barnes-to-dissolve-injury-attorney-firm/ (http://nypost.com/2017/05/10/cellino-sues-barnes-to-dissolve-injury-attorney-firm/)
This includes Celino suing barnes in one alleged lawsuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZq6t9jm0JQ
Im surprised I live in California and we are unaware of this lawsuit especially when they have ads in San Francisco on TV.
Quote from: Rothman on July 17, 2017, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 17, 2017, 11:33:43 AM
My favorite lawyer ads have always been the ones that claim "If we don't win your case, you won't have to pay us." Which roughly translates to "We'll do everything possible to win your case, even if our tactics may be considered legally or ethically questionable."
Not really. It just means that they receive a good chunk of the settlement or judgment.
It means the plaintiff doesn't have to pay the lawyers upfront. Without lawyers working on spec, the courts would be just for rich people.
California state bar ethics board made our attorneys advertise with less flash and more information on their jobs to the public. They can't have clients say "I made over a million or so" from winning their cases. Get to the point, lawyers...just be professional for a change.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2017, 07:30:34 AM
It's been in the news here in Orlando he has been arrested numerous times for DUI's. Hey if our former US President can be popular by not having a traditional marriage, so could this guy too and probably is getting more cases because of his partying and womanizing in strip clubs.
It must just be me being stupid, but which President was this? I'm not mocking, I'm legitimately curious.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 10, 2017, 08:30:33 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2017, 07:30:34 AM
It's been in the news here in Orlando he has been arrested numerous times for DUI's. Hey if our former US President can be popular by not having a traditional marriage, so could this guy too and probably is getting more cases because of his partying and womanizing in strip clubs.
It must just be me being stupid, but which President was this? I'm not mocking, I'm legitimately curious.
I assume he's talking about Bill Clinton. Non sequiturs are kind of his thing. (Roadman65, not Bill Clinton)
My real point is the fact that it does not matter what you have done over the years its your popularity. Hey there have been some politicians with criminal records that got where they are today. Values are no longer an issue when it comes to electing anyone and not saying that these kinds should not be in political office, but pointing out that we as a society don't rate personal traits for electing mayors, congressman, etc. Without making it sound like I do prefer good values in a candidate, I generally do not as in many times I have elected someone who done something I think is morally wrong because regardless I thought he could do the job he was running for.
The president was Bill Clinton to answer your question and he is really only a few of them. Clinton might be the only open marriage president to date, but there have been others who taken on mistresses over time as well and some were the greatest of the presidents too. These you will have to look up.
Quote from: Desert Man on August 09, 2017, 11:54:53 PM
They can't have clients say "I made over a million or so" from winning their cases. Get to the point, lawyers...just be professional for a change.
They're always holding that big check over their body, which makes me think they've been horribly disfigured. :crazy:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-office-locations-of-cellino--barnes-will-now-operate-under-a-new-name-the-barnes-firm-300517340.html
Update Celino and Barnes California offices are now The Barnes Firm.
Quote from: bing101 on September 14, 2017, 11:52:15 AM
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-office-locations-of-cellino--barnes-will-now-operate-under-a-new-name-the-barnes-firm-300517340.html
Update Celino and Barnes California offices are now The Barnes Firm.
Great, I already drafted my fantasy litigation defense squad.
I know old thread resurrected, but this pic inspired me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52465649772/in/dateposted-public/
Apparently this ambulance chaser, makes a court settlement seem like it's winning a prize from a lottery.
"Dewey, Cheatum and Howe, LLC"
:wow:
Mike
Quote from: roadman65 on October 31, 2022, 08:13:45 AM
I know old thread resurrected, but this pic inspired me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52465649772/in/dateposted-public/
Apparently this ambulance chaser, makes a court settlement seem like it's winning a prize from a lottery.
Well you are in the state that brought us the 1-800-ASK-GARY Amphitheater.
So...if lawyers aren't supposed to advertise, then how are they supposed to drum up new business?
Quote from: abefroman329 on October 31, 2022, 07:51:17 PM
So...if lawyers aren't supposed to advertise
Debunked on page 1 of this thread.
Quote from: oscar on October 31, 2022, 08:25:29 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on October 31, 2022, 07:51:17 PM
So...if lawyers aren't supposed to advertise
Debunked on page 1 of this thread.
Not exactly. It used to be the case that lawyers were not allowed to advertise. They could place passive ads, like a listing in the yellow pages, but not active ones like broadcast or flyers through the mail. Business came from word of mouth, and they were allowed to do things like donate to causes and get a thank-you mention somewhere. I suppose it made it hardest on new attorneys who weren't part of an established practice.
That rule was changed I think in the 1970s. Then you started seeing their ads everywhere.
https://www.milwaukeemag.com/never-bettered-david-gruber-one-call-thats-all/
One call
That's all!!!