IBJNews

Lawyers fret over enforcement of advertising rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of Indiana’s most familiar legal names—a frequent flier on buses, billboards and TV commercials—says enforcement of disciplinary rules governing attorney advertising is a mess and needs an overhaul.

“It’s enforcement by ambush,” said longtime personal-injury attorney Ken Nunn of Bloomington-based Ken Nunn Law Office. “I’m terrified I’m going to accidentally mess up. This shouldn’t be on my worry plate.”

Nunn and others say Indiana’s attorney advertising regulations are unclear, unevenly enforced and offer little practical guidance to avoid running afoul of the rules. A technical or even an unknowing violation can result in a costly and time-consuming disciplinary case.

“The whole process of helping lawyers, that’s gotten lost in the shuffle,” Nunn said. “Other states are helping their lawyers.”

hollingsworth zivitz lawyers advertising 15colCarmel-based Hollingsworth & Zivitz P.C. uses humor on its high-impact, wrap-around ads for IndyGo buses. (Submitted photo)

But the Indiana State Bar Association is taking tentative steps in that direction and might be looking to the Bluegrass State for guidance. The Kentucky State Bar has developed a pre-approval system in which its Attorneys’ Advertising Commission reviews ads in advance to ensure they comply with state Supreme Court rules. If an ad contains only information specifically permitted under state rules—things such as name and address, practice areas, education and the like—the review is free. A fee of $75 to $175 applies for other ads.

Nunn said he thinks most attorneys who advertise would gladly pay a fee for advance approval that also buys peace of mind. “Charge me,” he said. “I’ll sleep at night.”

Calls for changing the state’s attorney advertising rules enforcement increased after the recent Supreme Court disciplinary action In Re: Anonymous, in which Crown Point attorney Tim Kelly was issued a private reprimand for testimonials appearing on the Law Tigers website and for failing to include an address on a communication. Kelly was affiliated with Law Tigers but had no control of content that appeared on the site.

Ronald Layer, a partner in the Dyer law firm Layer Tanzillo Stassin & Babcock P.C., chairs the Attorney Advertising Committee of the Indiana State Bar Association. Layer said his committee and the bar’s Ethics Committee recently formed a subcommittee to explore changing the regulatory system.

“Our hope is to either get some sort of pre-approval or the next-best thing,” Layer said. That might be an advisory opinion that would assure an attorney who has sought pre-approval that “they’re not going to get whacked” over the content of an ad.

“In the meantime, we’re trying to disseminate as much information as we can so attorneys can at least get some help, albeit at this point kind of unofficial,” he said.

Layer said he was sympathetic to Kelly’s situation. “This is someone who tried to get information and tried to do what was right. Maybe it was a misstep, but was it an intentional breach? One would argue absolutely not.

“The point is, if we can get these committees going in the direction we’d like them to go, the Law Tigers thing wouldn’t have happened,” Layer said.

Certain regulations on attorney advertising have been struck down on First Amendment grounds in Florida, Louisiana and New York, among others. The very definition of advertising varies from state to state, as do the rules, and some critics say rules haven’t kept pace with an age where a website might be viewed as a law firm’s address.

Nunn’s firm advertises heavily, spending about $2.5 million annually. He said the firm typically is either No. 1 or No. 2 in the state, neck-and-neck with Keller & Keller P.C. of Indianapolis.

Carmel attorneys at Hollingsworth & Zivitz pay to build their brand, but partner Kena Hollingsworth estimated less than 5 percent of firm revenue goes toward advertising.

The firm’s lawyers and staff brainstorm to come up with sometimes-cheeky and attention-grabbing ads like the IndyGo full-bus wrap that carries the firm’s 317-DIVORCE phone number and the slogan “Hire us before your spouse does.”

“When we started the firm almost 10 years ago now, we were young girls just out of law school, so we knew we had to do something to set ourselves apart a little bit,” Hollingsworth said. “We don’t take ourselves too seriously, but we are serious lawyers.”

But she acknowledged compliance with advertising rules is always a concern in those brainstorming sessions, and she’d favor a pre-approval system. “I think it would be great,” she said.

“We’re always very mindful of what the rules are,” Hollingsworth said. “First and foremost, we would never misrepresent ourselves or do anything unethical.” The firm’s business is about 90-percent family law, she said, and its ads aim to present an image that clients feel they can relate to during an emotional time.

“That’s the overwhelming feedback I’ve received,” she said of the firm’s ads. “At the end of the day, that’s how we get clients in the door.”

Terre Haute personal-injury attorney James O. McDonald acknowledges that it’s sort of an advertisement when his firm’s website contains the message, “Non Advertising Trial Lawyers.” But it also hammers home a point he thinks resonates with potential clients: “I choose not to march in that parade.”

“I think when clients come to an attorney through advertising, they’re less apt to have confidence in the lawyer’s advice when it comes to personal-injury work,” McDonald said, averring that firms which advertise heavily have a “factory” reputation and may settle cases for less than they’re worth. He believes advertising can backfire, especially direct solicitations to people injured in accidents. He said he’s had clients who “resent it very much.”

“To me, the worst thing [lawyer ads] do is give the potential jury pool the impression that people are trying to get something for nothing,” he said.

Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C. partner John C. Render said he’s concerned that clients who choose an attorney on the basis of an ad might not be making the best choice. Render said his firm limits advertising to such communications as sending informational newsletters to existing clients.

“What it may come down to is the public chooses a lawyer based on who has the most resources to advertise,” he said. “There’s something intuitively wrong with that in my mind, and I don’t think it serves the public very well.

“If I can advertise or want to with a TV ad, am I going to get more calls, more clients, etc.? I might … because advertising works,” Render said. “I’m just not sure it has the same value in choosing professionals.”

Nunn acknowledges that being a heavy-advertising attorney carries a stigma, but he rejects the “settlement factory” criticism. He’s heard it, “and yet, we lead the state of Indiana in terms of doing the most jury trials for injured clients,” he said.

He also doesn’t accept claims that the public can’t be trusted to choose or not choose a lawyer based on advertising. “We can trust them as jurors,” Nunn said, “but somehow they’re too dumb to understand what an advertisement is.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Cramer agrees...says don't buy it and sell it if you own it! Their "pay to play" cost is this issue. As long as they charge customers, they never will attain the critical mass needed to be a successful on company...Jim Cramer quote.

  2. My responses to some of the comments would include the following: 1. Our offer which included the forgiveness of debt (this is an immediate forgiveness and is not "spread over many years")represents debt that due to a reduction of interest rates in the economy arguably represents consideration together with the cash component of our offer that exceeds the $2.1 million apparently offered by another party. 2. The previous $2.1 million cash offer that was turned down by the CRC would have netted the CRC substantially less than $2.1 million. As a result even in hindsight the CRC was wise in turning down that offer. 3. With regard to "concerned Carmelite's" discussion of the previous financing Pedcor gave up $16.5 million in City debt in addition to the conveyance of the garage (appraised at $13 million)in exchange for the $22.5 million cash and debt obligations. The local media never discussed the $16.5 million in debt that we gave up which would show that we gave $29.5 million in value for the $23.5 million. 4.Pedcor would have been much happier if Brian was still operating his Deli and only made this offer as we believe that we can redevelop the building into something that will be better for the City and City Center where both Pedcor the citizens of Carmel have a large investment. Bruce Cordingley, President, Pedcor

  3. I've been looking for news on Corner Bakery, too, but there doesn't seem to be any info out there. I prefer them over Panera and Paradise so can't wait to see where they'll be!

  4. WGN actually is two channels: 1. WGN Chicago, seen only in Chicago (and parts of Canada) - this station is one of the flagship CW affiliates. 2. WGN America - a nationwide cable channel that doesn't carry any CW programming, and doesn't have local affiliates. (In addition, as WGN is owned by Tribune, just like WTTV, WTTK, and WXIN, I can't imagine they would do anything to help WISH.) In Indianapolis, CW programming is already seen on WTTV 4 and WTTK 29, and when CBS takes over those stations' main channels, the CW will move to a sub channel, such as 4.2 or 4.3 and 29.2 or 29.3. TBS is only a cable channel these days and does not affiliate with local stations. WISH could move the MyNetwork affiliation from WNDY 23 to WISH 8, but I am beginning to think they may prefer to put together their own lineup of syndicated programming instead. While much of it would be "reruns" from broadcast or cable, that's pretty much what the MyNetwork does these days anyway. So since WISH has the choice, they may want to customize their lineup by choosing programs that they feel will garner better ratings in this market.

  5. The Pedcor debt is from the CRC paying ~$23M for the Pedcor's parking garage at City Center that is apprased at $13M. Why did we pay over the top money for a private businesses parking? What did we get out of it? Pedcor got free parking for their apartment and business tenants. Pedcor now gets another building for free that taxpayers have ~$3M tied up in. This is NOT a win win for taxpayers. It is just a win for Pedcor who contributes heavily to the Friends of Jim Brainard. The campaign reports are on the Hamilton County website. http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultfiles.asp?ARG1=Campaign Finance Images&ARG2=/Brainard, Jim

ADVERTISEMENT