What A Difference 43 Years Makes!

In a March 10, 1976, article in the Chattanooga Times it was mentioned that the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates had voted at their mid-winter meeting in Philadelphia to allow lawyers “to list their areas of specialization, office hours, charges for the first meeting and the availability of a full fee estimate upon request in bar-approved directories or a Yellow Pages ad that complies with local bar regulations on language and format.”

Jumping ahead that milk toast approach to lawyer advertising has been left behind and the United States Supreme Court in 1977 opened the flood gates to what is a daily onslaught of outlandish promises and exaggerated claims of courtroom ability when the nations court of last resort failed to define what is “deceptive lawyer advertising.”

Some of the local lawyers interviewed by reporter Carolyn Mitchell expressed grave doubts about the 1976 action of the ABA as being “very distasteful” but have since adjusted somewhat to become participants in the lawyer advertising circus.

The late Selma Cash Paty, a pioneer female attorney was one of the few individuals interviewed who felt that “the public was entitled to know the scope of lawyers abilities.”  However, she added a caveat that may be outdated in todays advertising circus when she quickly pointed out that “ads should be in good taste.”

Most of the lawyers interviewed expressed reservations about the then proposed minor relaxation of the rules against advertising.  One practitioner “recoiled in horror from the prospect of weekend specials on divorces which might be fostered on the public unless restrictions on ads are carefully drafted.”  He also “enthusiastically endorsed specialty ads as ‘vital and necessary’ in disputing the illusion, long fostered, that any attorney can handle any kind of case.” 

Another partner in one of Chattanooga’s largest law firms refuted that argument “in the event that an attorney listed a specialty in which he was not proficient, a natural shakedown would result,” he predicted.

A veteran criminal lawyer commented that “fifteen years of practicing law does not necessarily mean that a person is a specialist.”

While maintaining that a “lawyers best advertisement is their reputation” he erroneously predicted that “he didn’t anticipate a stampede to the Yellow Pages or the television stations.

What was then prohibited against (radio-television) commercials being used as vehicles for “stirring up litigation” in violation of ethic codes are now allowed under the broad term of the “publics right to know” with few limitations.

Another attorney states that “finding themselves in a field in which visibility is important, lawyers present themselves to the public in one way or another.”

One forward thinking female advocate stated “If you can afford it why not advertise on TV.”

An older female relative quipped that “lawyers have always known how to advertise.  They run for public office.”

Unfortunately, that premise is no longer true as the cost of getting elected and the accelerated cost of running a law office have greatly restricted sole practitioners or members of small law firms from running for the state legislature which formerly was dominated by attorneys.

What’s the big difference in 43 years?

“Ambulance chasing” and direct solicitation of cases is now legal and ethical if you can afford to pay the high cost of advertising through all forms of the media.

The main goal now is the same as it has ever been…”Get the case and even if you aren’t qualified to try the case you may be able to settle it to offset the advertising costs or associate a lawyer who has the credentials to actually try it!”

What will the next 43 years bring?

I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!

IF YOU AGREE WITH THE CONTENT OF THE SILLY BLOG, PLEASE PASS ON TO OTHERS!