Non Deceptive Newspaper Ads
At the risk of being criticized for discussing deceptive ads in the Chattanooga area I would like to mention three ads that I do not think violate the provisions of the United States Supreme Court decision in 1978 which authorized the publics “right to know” on a limited legitimation of lawyer advertising.
Attorney Richard (Dick) Teeter after the Bates decision started running an ad in the legal Chattanooga newspaper offering his legal services for uncontested divorces for $95.00. Although his fees have increased to $345.00 over the years they still comply with the original intent of the Supreme Court to offer legal services for a reasonable price to the general public.
A few years ago I asked competent civil and criminal attorney Dan Ripper not to run a rather bland article in the Chattanooga News Free Press stating he was interested in handling criminal cases. I have since apologized to Dan for my request in light of the exaggerated and deceptive ads now prevalent in the personal injury field. Dan has since been joined in his short ad by Amanda Dunn, an up and coming criminal and civil lawyer wherein they make the simple statement “Defending Your Rights” and tell how to reach them at their office.
Grant, Konvalinka and Harrison is one of Chattanooga’s largest and best qualified law firms. Occasionally they will conduct a free Estate Planning Workshop open to the public to attend and learn about Wills and Trusts in the probate field. Their ad in the Chattanooga News Free Press simply states the holding of the seminar and its availability to the public and where and when it will be held.
The advertisements of these three Chattanooga law firms are examples of what I believe the United States Supreme Court meant in 1978 when they allowed limited lawyer advertising.
They do not include exaggerated or deceptive claims about the records of the law firms primarily in the personal injury field.
I encourage you to buy local products and hire local, reputable attorneys!