Don't Hire A Billboard. Hire An Attorney.
Though many lawyers often speak of the ethical implications of attorney advertising—and rail against the larger firms with seemingly limitless resources to execute formal campaigns—their nobility and pride often give way to the harsh reality of the situation.
July 26, 2019 at 10:05 AM
5 minute read
Some seasoned members of the legal profession may recall a time when attorney advertising was prohibited. Over the past several years, however, we have seen a proliferation of it through various media. Indeed, attorney advertising has not only become the norm, but it has become almost essential for the continued success and viability of a law firm. Though many lawyers often speak of the ethical implications of attorney advertising—and rail against the larger firms with seemingly limitless resources to execute formal campaigns—their nobility and pride often give way to the harsh reality of the situation. If they wish to remain in the competitive marketplace of legal representation, they are forced to advertise. In other words, if everyone else is doing it, then I have to, also.
Irrefutably, advertising works. When I worked at a large firm with a successful advertising and marketing strategy, I saw firsthand how these advertisements made the phone ring. While we did have a regular stream of new clients, the unintended drawback was the effect of the advertising on members within the legal community. Routinely, I would hear attacks from attorneys at other firms and face their scorn at social gatherings and on email Listservs. Countering these barbs by stating we were playing within the rules—the advertisements had been approved by the Florida bar and that we wouldn't do it if it didn't work—did little to diffuse the situation. Opposing counsel would also attempt to use our ads against us, particularly at trial in the voir dire stages. Again, the firm had done absolutely nothing wrong. The advertisements were factually accurate, effective, and bar-approved. But for a large segment of our professional brethren, it just seemed wrong.
Over time, many of these complaints gave way to similar advertising by other firms. These days, we live in a world where whoever shouts the loudest wins. If you want to compete, and remain in business, you need to play the same game as everyone else. All that said, smaller firms simply cannot compete with larger firms when it comes to advertising dollars. Like it or not, attorney advertising is here to stay.
This is the part where public education comes into play. At the heart of Florida's rules on attorney advertising, and those employed by the American Bar Association, is the well-intentioned purpose to protect the public from false or misleading advertising. And, while most of these ads do appear to be permissible and accurate, a law firm's willingness to spend millions of dollars annually on a media blitz should never be confused with its ability to provide professional, top-quality representation. While many lawyers who implement paid advertising campaigns are excellent at what they do, you should not retain them simply because they have the most impressive self-promotion techniques. Teaching the public that hiring an attorney is among the most important decisions that they will make in their lives, that they only have one chance with their case, and that they should take the time to meet with prospective counsel and interview them will, in part, negate the effect of “big advertising.”
So, what can we do about it? A lot.
Remind friends, colleagues, and prospective clients that they are not choosing what soda to drink or what shoes to wear. Instead, they are deciding who will be their voice in the courtroom, who will protect their rights, and who will be their advocate, counselor and adviser throughout their legal matter's lifecycle. Is this someone that should be hired based upon a 30-second television spot? The attorney-client relationship is just that—a relationship—one that must inherently be built upon certain foundational elements, such as trust, respect and confidence. Those fundamentals cannot be realized from a billboard or a television commercial, so doing your due diligence becomes paramount. Meet with the attorney—not his staff—you plan to hire. Ask questions about her education, experience and how she intends to handle your case. Does his personality mesh with yours? Has she handled similar cases in the past? Most importantly, ask yourself, “Do you feel comfortable with this attorney working for you on a matter that will have a lasting impact on your life?”
The answers to these critical questions cannot be determined from a billboard. Once the general public understands why, and resists the “shiny-object syndrome” and “loudest-voice-in the-room” mentality, perhaps we could see the pendulum swing back the other way, and allow our accomplishments, reputations and abilities speak for us.
Howard J. Weitzner is an attorney with Cutler Rader, a leading South Florida law firm specializing in personal injury and commercial litigation. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMotions for Summary Judgment and Discovery: The 2021 Rule Changes Continue to Emerge
5 minute readAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250