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 AllConversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
5 minute readSEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
6 minute readTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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