Yesterdays’ post on quotations from judges in legal marketing materials resulted in some lively discussion. Some of the points of discussion:

  1. Context is important, as judges often say nice things before doing unpleasant things. Comment on point.
  2. Isn’t misleading marketing already illegal?
  3. Does anything really think consumers will make up their minds based on a quotation from a judge?


  1. Mike says:

    The first comment on yesterday’s post raised the best point – that consumers may be led to believe that a lawyer has an ‘in’ with a particular judge.

  2. Andrew Nettleman says:

    I just have never understood why the State Bars always take the position that the public is stupid and gullible and will always be taken advantage of by lawyers. Misleading advertising is prohibited. That should be sufficient.

    • Gyi Tsakalakis says:

      Misleading + False…

    • Andrew says:

      Well, it’s a rare case, but there are instances of attorneys taking advantage of poor, stupid and gullible people. When that happens, it’s not just that one lawyer that looks bad, it makes all of us look bad. Therefore, the advertisement rules exist so that lawyers, as a profession, can regain some credibility with the public at large.

      • Less rare than we’d like to accept. But do these rules do more than the ban on false and misleading to help lawyers regain credibility or protect public?

        It seems to me that many of the rules actually make it more difficult for the public to distinguish between lawyers.

Leave a Reply