This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 11, 2007 7:37 AM. The previous post in this blog was For Wyden and Murray, budget committee meetings. The next post in this blog is Roundup will not kill them. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, May 11, 2007

Lawyer advertising reaches new pinnacle

I understand that the neighbors quickly made them take this one down:

Comments (14)

Lawyers have almost no class. It's great!


I think they have a point.

There was a TV series a few years back with Stacy Keach as the grandfather(?)

His grandson asked him "why do divorces cost so much?"

His reply: "Because they're worth it."

what, no toll-free number? hacks.

It's almost predictable that their protest of the removal of the sign involved the word "art", as opposed to "commercial speech". I suppose they will appeal the action and be crying about freedom of expression.

Portland had such an issue arise a while back, but I can't recall exactly what it was about. Anyone remember?

I don't think I'd entrust my divorce to lawyers who didn't even know they needed a city permit to put their sign there.

Blimy, I never get to see billboards like that around here. All I ever see is Providence trying to get me to eat green beans and some other group worried that I'm spending too much time gambling. Let's hope they fight it and open a Portland office.

The word 'tram' is nowhere to be found.
Why take it down?

if only we could divorce the Tram. it's like a mate that got the children, the house and all the money--but we're still married.

and whaddya got when there are 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start....badda bing!

It was removed, but only because they didn't have a permit for the billboard. Chicago's great.

Actually, these are very unusual lawyers. They apparantly know something about marketing. Their billboard got them mention on several national radio shows (Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to name two where I heard the discussion) and an interview on at least one other (Tom Leykis). Their website was overwhelmed with traffic. It was out of commission for a time (which wasn't such good marketing). The "controversy" caused by the requirement to take the billboard down got them even more attention. And of course, like the tram roof sign, some gasbag local politician had the sign removed, violating at least the spirit of the first amendment, on a sign law technicality. The whole thing actually improved my view of the legal profession (and would have further reduced my opinion of local politician-types, other than that it couldn't be lower than it already was).


Ditto to Bob's comments.

It makes you long for the day, that I am still old enough to remember when Professionals, Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Engineers, Architects, etc, felt it was unethical to advertise at all, and relied on professional reputation and standing and participation in Civic and Professional socieites and organizations to bring work in the door. Back when the Bars and Boards truely did police the profession and get rid of the bad apples before the whole barrel was tainted. When whistle blowers were lauded by their profession as for protecting the greater public interest, for telling the truth, not rewarded for lying to the public ala Enron, Tram Costs, Boob Billboards, Cronie Appraisals, etc.

Clicky Web Analytics