This is the last installment of the analysis of lawyer television ads from other jurisdictions and the practical application of the new ban on many nicknames, monikers, mottoes or trade names that is found in 1200.6(c)(7) of the newly promulgated New York lawyer advertising rules. This provision states that an advertisement shall not "utilize a nickname, moniker, motto or trade name that implies an ability to obtain results in a matter."
The previous posts can be found here.
In this final post, let's look at two more lawyer tv ads from other jurisdictions and see how these ads would fare under the new rules if broadcast in New York.
First, an ad from a Missouri law firm:
In this ad, the lawyer states: "My law firm...has collected a third of a billion dollars for injured people. Not million--billion. See? I fix problems."
Does this claim violate the above rule? I think it falls under the infamous "gray area" in the rules. Depending on your perspective, that phrase might imply an ability to obtain results in a matter. But, then again, it might not. What do you think?
(View the second video after the jump.)
Next, an ad out of Texas:
This lawyer states: "My name is Timothy Raub, and I can help you."
I don't think that this statement violates the above rule. I mean, after all, isn't that what lawyers are supposed to do--help people?
Another possible issue raised by this video is whether the use of the lawyer's family in the video violates 1200.6, which provides in relevant part, that "An advertisement shall not: ... (c) rely on techniques to obtain attention that demonstrate a clear and intentional lack of relevance to the selection of the most appropriate counsel including the portrayal of lawyers exhibiting characteristics clearly unrelated to legal competence." Eric Turkewitz examined this issue in this post at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog.
I'm inclined to think that in this particular commercial, the use of Mr. Raub's family does not violate the rule. The context in which he uses his family in the commercial is arguably relevant to legal competence since he's asserting that he's a better choice because he and his family are local.What do you think?