Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
After 30 Years, Law Firm Advertising Is Slow to Change
In the early days of attorney advertising, law firms created ads to demonstrate their unparalleled integrity and resourcefulness. Some three decades later, law firms are creating ads to demonstrate their unparalleled integrity and resourcefulness. Although firms themselves have undergone profound changes since the U.S. Supreme Court decided 30 years ago this month that even lawyers were entitled to free speech, the profession's advertising manner and message ' especially among the larger firms ' have evolved very little in those 30 years, according to many industry observers. Some of the sameness is due to ethics rules, aimed to protect the public, that rein in unfounded claims and hyperbole. But most of the advertising vanilla, say observers, comes from risk aversion and a fear of flash that persist among law firm decision-makers.
'It's very frustrating,' said Micah Buchdahl, an attorney and president of HTMLawyers, a law firm marketing company based in Moorestown, NJ. 'The law firm marketing world is still not very sophisticated.'
In June 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bates v. Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, that disciplinary rules imposed by the State Bar of Arizona prohibiting lawyers from advertising violated free speech rights. In 1974, attorneys John Bates and Van O'Steen bought an ad in a local newspaper, in violation of the rule, for their law firm that provided services to low- and moderate-income clients who did not qualify for legal aid.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.