In the land of hype, the shameless man is king. Even though I’m on the road this weekend, I take a few minutes to check my email and keep abreast of things. One thing that came across bothered me, mostly because it was an effort I admired while simultaneously presenting an issue that made me cringe.
I received an email from a young attorney trying to get himself on the misdemeanor indigent defense panel seeking the opportunity to second seat at trial. This is exactly what he should be doing, with the obvious caveat that the first seat have a clue, but that’s not within his power to control. Since I support efforts like this, I checked out the young attorney’s website. It wasn’t good.
The website spoke to the “attorneys of the firm,” “their vast experience” and “excellent results.” All total nonsense. All lies. This was a one man shop with almost no experience whatsoever. I understand, though I do not condone, the exaggerated claims of experience. No client wants to pop a lawyer’s cherry. But why the lies to suggest that there are multiple lawyers at the “firm”? Multiple personalities comes to mind, but I doubt that he can claim psychosis as an excuse.
I occasionally indulge in the royal “we” here from time to time, and can always rely on someone like Gideon or Bennett to give me a good smack for doing so. No matter how many times I look in the mirror (always a sobering experience), I’m still just one person. I’m fortunate to have good friends to keep me honest.
So what is it about lawyers who feel compelled to deceive clients to pretend that they have some large law firm, with busy little bee lawyers running around doing their bidding? Clearly, many clients take comfort in the idea that there are “resources” available should they hire this lawyer, a naive notion on the part of clients but one that persists nonetheless. But the fact that clients like lawyers with lots of other lawyers surrounding them, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a figment of the lawyer’s imagination. Or, to be more precise, a lie crafted to create the positive impression of substance where none exists.
Is this acceptable? Tolerable? Understandable? The answer, no matter how hard you squint, is that it is a deliberate deception. It’s calculated to make a client believe something that you know to be false. It’s certainly easy enough to do, and adding the plural to every attorney reference in the website creates the sort of impression that will make potential clients feel more secure about retaining your services, especially if you’re a kid lawyer who can’t manage to get on the misdemeanor panel yet. But it’s a lie.
Granted, it’s not the sort of lie that will make other lawyers rat you out to the disciplinary committee. There are plenty of lawyers doing far worse who will never receive a complaint letter, and you aren’t even in the ballgame of bad lawyers. At least not for using the plural. But I will remember you as being a lawyer who lies. I will remember that you are the sort of person who will deceive your own potential clients to get their money.
Or is your problem that you can’t count? My problem is that I can’t count on you. The young lawyer will now be marked as someone who would lie to get a client, and I don’t want him sitting next to me at trial. Maybe you can second seat one of the many lawyers who comprise your law firm, but you can’t sit next to me.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree 100%. No one should parade themselves as someone that they are not, and if they are not being honest about who they are, they should be called on it. Thankfully there are lawyers like you who will not tolerate people pretending that they are something they are not.
Yeah, I’m the avenging angel of the internet, or something like that. As you know, the marketing myopia blinds people to the “minor” indiscretions necessary to mount an effective campaign. As you also know, the marketers have no issue with pushing ethics and truthfulness to the side in their zeal to make a buck. But hey, it keeps us avenging angels busy.
This is a little relevant to your post about “law offices.” I still have only “a law office.”
Same concept, though I suppose if you have “law offices,” then you really need to have “attorneys” in your “law firm.”
You’ve got me rethinking the “Contact Us” button in the sidebar of my website. Then again, I do have a part-time secretary / legal assistant (i.e. my wife). “Contact Me” just sounds weird, but maybe that’s a better and more honest option.
My pet peeve is the attorneys who rent out one room in a multiplex and share a secretary with 10 other attorneys. They claim multiple offices based on “of counsel” members of the firm.
You got me checking our own website for our small firm. We had two offices but consolidated into one. No longer “offices”
It’s the “shame” of the solo, always trying to be more than they are, as if a solo practitioner or small firm is somehow less worthy. It’s time solos and small firms stopped thinking of themselves as deficient and in need of “resources” and started standing up for what they bring to the table.
I don’t know, something about “contact me” sounds even better – we’ve all learned that often “contact us” means send us something that us will never respond to.