Ethics Forum: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility
The Smart Start-ignition interlock device is apparently advertising heavily in Pennsylvania due to the new changes of the rules for ignition interlock.
October 26, 2017 at 03:00 PM
17 minute read
Partnership with Smart Start doesn't seem smart at all.
I saw some attorneys advertising their partnership with Smart Start, the interlock ignition device provider, for persons convicted of driving under the influence. They advertise the coupons that they will give their clients to save $70. Is that ethical?
The Smart Start-ignition interlock device is apparently advertising heavily in Pennsylvania due to the new changes of the rules for ignition interlock. To attract attorneys there's a Smart Start Attorney Partner Program put together by the company. Apparently, the attorney pays some very small fee and is considered a “partner” in the Smart Start business. In return, the attorney is given a number of free coupons worth $70, which they can give to their clients to get reduced fees on the ignition interlock. The attorneys can also get a portable breath tester device for $75, which is apparently less than the $129 purchase price.
This leads into the question, since some attorneys are advertising on websites or elsewhere that they have free coupons and they are using them to attract new clients.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholders Christina M. Carroll and A. Michael Pratt have entered appearances for the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Wendy Spicher in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 13 in Texas Northern District Court by Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders; Ashcroft Sutton Reyes; and Locke Lord on behalf of TMX Finance Corporate Services, seeks to challenge the secretary’s ongoing attempt to regulate commercial lending activity outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The suit furthers contends that the secretary issued an investigative subpoena to TMX for potential violations of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law and the Consumer Discount Company Act despite TMX's business activities not being governed by such. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey, is 3:24-cv-02054, TMX Finance Corporate Services Inc v. Spicher.
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
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
