The Advertising Police Has Spoken
The gold standard can easily be obtained by inquiry. Thus, there is no excuse for any attorney to subject himself or herself to punitive action by the committee.
October 30, 2022 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
What is the purpose of advertising? To market your services. How do you want to represent the quality of legal services which you can provide to potential clients to distinguish yourself from your competition? Perhaps, one of your marketing objectives may be to call attention to yourself as more qualified or more knowledgeable or more experienced or more successful than other lawyers in the market.
There's the rub. And that is the reason why in 1987 the New Jersey Supreme Court created its Attorney Advertising Committee as an instrument to ensure that attorneys who want to market their services – and attorneys have a constitutional, but not unlimited, right to market their professional presence – in a manner that will effectively develop a clientele, as long as any such advertising is not false, deceptive or misleading, or runs counter to specific qualifiers by individual jurisdictions. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383 (1977). But there are attorneys, and firms, who stretch marketing language to make use of hyperbole, based solely on the opinion, or hope, of the marketing attorney.
This content has been archived.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 All'Plant Your Flag': Pennsylvania-Based Pietragallo Expands Across the River to the Garden State
3 minute readLaw Firm Marketers Saw Pay Raises, but Workload and Promotion Challenges Remain
6 minute readThe Path to Equity Partnership Is Lengthening. Are Firms Making the Change in Good Faith?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How We Won It: Latham Secures Back-to-Back ITC Patent Wins for California Companies
- 2Meta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
- 3Stevens & Lee Hires Ex-Middle District of Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney as White-Collar Co-Chair
- 4Alameda Judge Ursula Jones Dickson Chosen as District Attorney
- 5'A Long 6 Years': No $150M for Goldman Sachs Investors
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