Attorney advertising is a relatively new phenomenon. Until 1977 lawyers were essentially prohibited from advertising their services to the public. However, the 1977 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona changed all that. In Bates, the Court decided that it was not only permissible for attorneys to advertise, but that it was important for attorneys to advertise.

The reason is clients can make more informed decisions when selecting an attorney if they have more information about attorneys and the services they offer. The Bates decision was a watershed case that forced states to tweak their ethical rules concerning attorney advertising.

Since Bates however, there has been a glut of distasteful lawyer advertising – especially personal injury attorney advertising – permeating all types of media, i.e. internet, television, print advertising, etc. This results in the all too common “ambulance chaser” ads and the negative public perceptions that flow from such advertising.

I do feel however that attorneys should be able to advertise their services relatively unimpeded. But with one caveat: attorney advertising must not be distasteful and lowbrow. What do I mean by this? Attorneys, especially personal injury and car accident attorneys, should not be allowed to create misleading ads which create unjustified expectations for clients, i.e. “We will get you millions!”

A specific example of attorney advertising is direct solicitation. I do not believe though that direct solicitation should be made through telephone calls, but only, through one written letter to the prospective client. The letter will contain at the top a bold headline conspicuously stating “ADVERTISING MATERIALS.” Many states already have this ethical requirement in place in their attorney ethics codes.

But within the letter, no unjustified or misleading representation should be made. The letter should simply state in the body that the attorney authoring the letter may be able to help the prospective client, but that no particular results or outcomes for the client can be promised or guaranteed.

Allowing attorneys to advertise within reasonable bounds arguably increases the access clients have to quality lawyers. It also allows the client to be more discerning about which attorney is best for her. At the same time, allowing attorneys to advertise protects their commercial speech rights. As long as attorneys are able to advertise within reasonable bounds, and as long as the profession of law is considered to be a noble one, I am satisfied.