The Most Awesomest Ever (Until The Next One)

When Jamie Casino’s Superbowl ad went viral, everyone said it was the most awesome lawyer commercial ever. Sure, anyone with half a brain realized how awful it was, throwing criminal defendants under the bus, trading on his brother’s death for a buck, but those were the details. It was AWESOME!!!

There are any number of funny, disgusting, abhorrent, awesome things posted on Youtube everyday. What made this different was that it was by and about a lawyer, so we took notice. Lawyers aren’t usually the cool kids, and nobody pays us much attention, so this was a major shift. Everyone was watching.  Enough so that it got Casino a reality show gig.

According to Deadline, Warner Horizon Television signed Casino to create Casino’s Law. One of the producers from The Bachelor will develop the show, which doesn’t have a concept yet, but hey, that’s not important right now. Hopefully, it will feature more flaming sledgehammers.

It doesn’t have a concept yet.  Sigh. Remember when shows had plots? And no real housewives?

But Jamie Casino was then. Hours have passed, and it’s now time for the old awesome to meet the new awesome. Jamie, meet Dan Muessig.

Not even a lawyer for a year, Dan is today’s flavor of awesome.  At the Puddle, Sam Glover notes that his law chops may not match his “over the top” advertising chops very well, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the “greatest lawyer ad ever.”  Want to bet there is a 3L pounding out a script right now to use on the day after he passes the bar?

I’m going to take a huge leap of faith and guess that the Muessig ad was a mash of a tiny bit serious and lulz, way heavier on the lulz to get everyone laughing at the absurdity of the video while spreading his name and, if you notice that accurate serious caveat slipped into the middle that no lawyer can guarantee an outcome, maybe catching some interest.  But come on, moonshining? That’s funny.

Worst case is it goes viral, and what kid doesn’t get a woody over that?  Best case is he gets the slot previously held for Jamie Casino, who is now relegated to the junk pile of old awesomeness.  Let’s face it, nobody cares about Casino now that Muessig has stolen the awesome sauce.  And if it makes you feel any better, Jamie, nobody was going to watch your show anyway. Nobody.

The question is how far this game will go.  What will the next “most awesome lawyer ad ever” do, burn courthouses and shoot judges?  Hey, I can laugh at a video made in good fun as well as the next guy, and I have to admit that Muessig’s video was funny.  But as we’ve already learned, once the race to the bottom begins, it’s hard to stop.

So have fun with these outrageous and awesome videos, and enjoy the fact that people might actually see lawyers as having a sense of humor, or at least not be as much of a bore as they thought.  But if Dan Muessig made this to not only be awesome, but to be real, we have a very different problem.

Yet, I reject that idea because no one could have done this without intending it to be fun for all.  So have fun. Enjoy. And let’s all agree that the joke was great, but now it’s played, and move on.

31 thoughts on “The Most Awesomest Ever (Until The Next One)

  1. Bill

    I agree it’s pretty funny, but I think it’s too close to Saul Goodman’s ads. Nonetheless, it’s a huge breath of fresh air – we need more humor in the world.

    1. SHG Post author

      Humor is a relative thing, especially when it’s too close to potential reality that someone might think this is real, and try to out-real it.

  2. RKTlaw

    I’m with SHG on this one. Casino’s was entertaining (again, if you get past trading on his dead brother) and this was funny, but if these start popping up routinely it will hurt.

  3. Mark Draughn

    I do have to admire how unapologetic the ad is. I once offended a criminal defense lawyer when I offhandedly described his job as something like “Helping criminals get away with crimes.” I understand why he objected to that characterization, because that’s not quite what he’s selling, but if I were the client (and I more or less did the crime), then that’s pretty much what I’d be looking to buy.

      1. Mark Draughn

        Well then I wouldn’t be needing a lawyer to help me get away with a crime, now would I? I’d be An Innocent Man, Wrongly Accused of a Crime I Did Not Commit. Everyone knows you hire Perry Mason when that happens…

        1. Patrick Maupin

          I think he’s dead. Are you implying that now that he no longer needs employment, the DAs never charge the innocent?

  4. Pingback: Most outrageous video lawyer ad ever? - Overlawyered

  5. earlwer

    Moonshining is back. There’s even a ‘Reality’ show called Moonshiners on the Discovery Channel.

  6. Vincent Messina

    SHG, please don’t yell at me for asking this question. The intent is to actually learn something NOT to agree or disagree with the video.

    I recently became aware of the video through a legal chat on Google. The lawyers were disgusted by the video.

    Maybe rightfully so.

    But I asked, and was ignored, if we consider advertising and marketing in its purest sense, outside the boundaries of the lawyers code of ethics, than Daniel isn’t Daniels video a representation of advertising and marketing in its purest form? ie, he is not selling his services to you. he is selling his services to criminals.

    I dont like the video. I dont like that he says that laws are arbitrary, among a bunch of other characteristics of the ad. But he is not selling to me either.

    If he is within the confines of the code of ethics in the sate of PA, and from what I researched he is, than where does this ad go wrong, other than it is purely not a professional presentation, and basically craps all over a profession?

    What risk does it present to the profession?

    What I want to know is if lawyer marketing has an obligation as much to the profession as it does to the purest purpose of what advertising and marketing is for.

    What say you?

    And don’t call me a shithead. I sincerely want to understand this. The lawyers on Google+ were not very nice in ignoring my question. LOL…well, at least I think they were not very nice.

    Also note, apparently Daniel is a former Rapper, which might explain his take on things. But if he is smart enough to graduate from UPenn, shouldn’t he get at least some respect?

    1. SHG Post author

      That’s a lot of questions, Vin. I’m going to distill them down into a few answers. First, as I say in the post, I take the video as a parody, so it doesn’t upset me any more than Saul Goodman upsets me. It’s funny and ridiculous, and that’s fine for a parody.

      You say you researched the code of ethics and you think he’s within them. You need to work on your research skills. The ad is replete with lies. The code prohibits deception. The ad implies that he enables crime. The code prohibits us from doing so. We defend. We do not enable. He misstates the law. The code requires us to educate the public accurately, not empower ignorance. So no, it does not comport with the code of ethics in any way. And no, his being a rapper does not entitle him to ignore the code of ethics.

      Vin, would it be cool with you if someone advertised a car as being able to fly, except it couldn’t? It would be great marketing, except that it’s a total, complete sham. Lawyers are not cars, laundry detergent or yogurt. We have constraints such as honesty. If marketing ignores them, then the person should not be a lawyer. Even if its what people would really like to hear from lawyers.

      I could market myself by telling potential clients that I know how they can get away with crimes. It might be a big hit. It would also be a gross violation of the code of ethics. I can’t do it. I wouldn’t do it. Because I am a lawyer. See how that works?

      What I want to know is if lawyer marketing has an obligation as much to the profession as it does to the purest purpose of what advertising and marketing is for.

      When one becomes a lawyer, one assumes the duty to adhere to the code of professional responsibility. Under no circumstances, ever, does marketing trump our ethical duties. Ever.

      1. vin

        Thank you for the response sir.

        The research I is was more related to commentary than the code of ethics. That he was in compliance was a reference to what a different lawyer wrote about the ad, and in that case, the lawyer felt just as you do, but indicated that “technically” Daniels ad was in compliance with PA’s code.

        I didn’t mean to suggest I researched that.

        Your response makes more sense and was exactly what I was wondering.

        I do NOT believe in hype marketing not do I believe in fraudulent marketing, in or out of the legal profession.

        I think the ad is [edit]stupid[/edit], but that doesn’t stop me from needing to examine it from all angles.

        As always, thanks.

        1. SHG Post author

          I would very much appreciate your not using the word “retarded” as a pejorative. And the ad is not “technically” in compliance. Whoever said that is not sufficiently familiar with the Code of Professional Responsibility.

          1. vin

            You are probably right.

            And I am sorry about the pejorative.

            Could you edit that out.

            I use it to causally. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

          2. Vincent Messina

            This is the article where the writer indicated that Daniel, “According to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, it is within the conduct permitted by the state’s legal ethics rules.”

            [Ed. Note: Link deleted per rules and to prevent readers from being made stupider.]

            Is this an ethical ad? According to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, it is within the conduct permitted by the state’s legal ethics rules.

            I should have been more specific when I referenced it. Not very extensive “research” on my part. Just saw this article, and assumed since it was written by an attorney, it was accurate.

            1. SHG Post author

              Aha. This is an important point to be made, that just because somebody said something on the interwebz does not make it so. I am fully familiar with the person who writes that blog. He is a failed lawyer who is trying to reinvent himself as a self-proclaimed ethics maven so that he can sell a business to people who are too foolish to realize that he’s a clueless buffoon, despite having no bona fides, being a fraud, disreputable and an ignoramus. Yet, because he has a blog, people assume he must have some basis for his opinion.

              He does not. An assertion is only as worthy as its source. This source is not credible. Not at all.

            2. Vincent Messina

              You know, this is a very interesting side subject. You are so right when you say people read it, and then believe it.

              This is the primary reason I ask for multiple opinions on things. Assuming this dude was the real deal, because he wrote it, and was a lawyer, was a mistake on my part.

              But again, that is why I check multiple sources and harass people like you for an opinion.

              That article you wrote about JM is completely revealing.

              Thank you for sharing. And for guiding me to the truth.

  7. ick

    I wouldn’t let that guy take a DUI plea for me, much less trust him with a murder trial. Seriously.

  8. Pingback: In Praise of Honesty: A Misguided Grasp of Criminal Defense | Simple Justice

  9. Pingback: A Few Ways to Look Criminal Lawyers

Comments are closed.