Evolution of Legal Advertisement

An piece on Legal advertising blows past $1 billion and becomes widely shared revisits the debate regarding how attorneys should promote their services. The piece aims to resolve the long-running debate over whether attorneys have the right to advertise in print media. The anticipated ethical standards for legal experts have long been the subject of heated discussion. The development of legal advertising is a contentious problem that has prompted academic study. Recently, national media outlets have discussed the issue of whether or not lawyers should promote their services. A review of a previous court case Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) provides an insight into the underlying legal and ethical history of legal advertising. The outcome of the case asserts the position of the article that lawyers have the right to advertise. The issue of discussion is critical as influences public perception of lawyers and the general quality of judicial dispensation. Like any other proffesion, legal expert are allowed in line with business practices (Victor,n.d). The approach of advertising is evidently considered as not a preserve of the lawyers. However, the increasing influence of marketing in service industry has not left out legal experts. However, mixed reaction among the legal bodies, the government and members of the public provoke intense research on the topic. The sensitivity of the lawyer’s services makes the topic critical. In essence, banning advertising on legal services is a matter of constitutional violation of the first amendment.

The case on Bates v. State Bar of Arizona was a result of two legal experts from Arizona that opened a legal service to help the low income earners. They decided to place a newspaper advertisement to attract more clients and gain more income. The intervention of state Bar against their action was met with outcry that the probation contravened the free speech clause in the first amendment that upholds right to free speech and Sherman Act. The ruling was that advertisement is acceptable as a way to inform and create awareness among prospective clients and such disciplinary rule against the lawyers was a violation of the constitutional first amendments. The ruling was therefore based on 14th and 1st amendment. The justification for the ruling was that Sherman Act does not restrain commercial advertising on any service. The fact that legal services have fixed prices does not make it unethical to adjust in response to additional charges and special circumstances (Victor,n.d). In fact, the ruling further emphasized the role of advertising as a tool that promotes information exchange between buyer and seller and legal service is one such activities. Unless advertising is done with misrepresented information on price, quality, and quantity, it is a right of any person including legal entity like a law firm. In a review of the article in question, the ruling on legal advertisement is legal and has little to do with ethics. Any attempt to prohibit advertising even put the clients to the risk of exploitation. Besides, the advertising is a commercial endeavor that works in the spirit of economic development and exchange of information.

The article seems to explore various business codes of ethics in relation to legal services. Although mixed responses is evident the article, the case rule referred to in the article tells a lot about the constitutionality of advertising. After all, prohibiting lawyers from advertising is tantamount to gagging press. The ruling on the case and comparative analysis of the article’s findings explores the contentious nature of the issue. However,overwhelming evidence and critical argument in favor of advertising (Victor,n.d). The ethical concerns discussed in the article and the overwhelming constitutionality stated in the case makes it clear that legal advertising and ethics is subjective. Advertising is good in the sense that it creates competition in terms of the quality of the services. Besides, the information gap that promotes exploitation and soliciting of money from unsuspecting clients. In that respect, the legal professionals will improve on their quality of services, client will get fair prices, and the judicial system would improve significantly. I believe that advertising is a constitutionally accepted tool for marketing.However,when it comes to online advertising, it is a given that making untrue claims, bait-and-switch offers, and the like are unethical (Victor,n.d). But those aren’t the only ethical issues to consider. Advertorials, interstitial ads, pop-ups and pop-unders, contextual links, and overlay ads, all come with ethical hazards. However, emphasis needs to be put in place to secure the interest of the clients through censored actions of the lawyers. Generally, the legal professionals needs tighter rules to tame their tactical advertising approaches that may include manipulation of clients and frustrating judicial process after getting a client.

Work cited

Victor Li. Legal advertising blows past $1 billion and goes viral.ABA Journal.