News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

How Come the Bar Does Not Disbar lawyers who advertise?

Started by roadman65, July 11, 2017, 09:14:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

roadman65

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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe


oscar

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.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

GCrites

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.

triplemultiplex

"That's just like... your opinion, man."

21stCenturyRoad

Well, should the AMA kick out doctors who advertise in order to reach out? :confused:
The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

hbelkins

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

roadman65

I always thought that they originally could not advertise was because its was considered to be a conflict of interest to do so.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SP Cook

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). 


oscar

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".
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

kkt

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.

berberry

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!

inkyatari

I wish someone would smack that smug glen lerner douchebag.

"Call 222- twenty two, twenty two!"
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

SP Cook

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



oscar

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.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

hbelkins

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?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

SectorZ

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...

SP Cook

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.

spooky

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.

The Nature Boy

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.

SectorZ

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.

hbelkins

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

michravera

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.

spooky

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.

jwolfer

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

berberry

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.