A fellow criminal defense lawyer emailed me the other day. He decided to check out New York criminal defense lawyers on Avvo, and was surprised by an advertisement that popped up on the search page. Maybe surprised isn’t exactly the word. Maybe angry.
So he sent me a link and asked me what I thought of the ad. I was immediately repulsed by the face that appeared on my screen. “No, you idiot,” he responded. Not that. The advertisement on the other side of the page. This one…
That’s ugly, but likely effective. Put aside the question of whether a law firm really wants the sort of “clients” that Avvo has to offer, consisting primarily of those seeking free answers to inane questions. Obviously, they do or they wouldn’t advertise. After all, who doesn’t seek defendants whose opening salvo is, “why should I have to pay a lawyer if I’m innocent?”
But are they the “Top Client Rated Criminal Defense Attorney in New York?” Probably, according to how one defines that. If it’s defined as the lawyer who has asked more misdemeanor defendants to go to Avvo and write something nice about him, then I suspect that Jeremy Saland (Avvo Rating 8.1) is the lawyer with more client ratings than anybody else in town, with 16 client ratings to his name.
Does that mean anything? Well, it beats the hell out of 16 clients complaining about you, that’s for sure. On the other hand, most lawyers don’t seek client ratings as part of their marketing campaign. Some, myself included, tell our happy clients not to do so, though I would expect that those lawyers with a volume practice would have an advantage regardless.
Does this mean there should be a rush for other lawyers with high volume practices to get their clients to write nice things about them? Maybe, if this is how they want to promote themselves.
But the balance of the advertisement is more unsavory. Top Criminal Defense Firm? Not even the qualification.”One of the…?” Puffery, for sure, but too much so? After all, this is an advertisement, and the purpose of an Advertisement is to sell, right? If you can’t throw some hyperbole into an ad, where you can you throw it? And it could be worse. At least it didn’t say “and all the other lawyers suck.” The day will come when someone puts that in an advertisement, when there’s nowhere left to go.
The part that disturbs me the most is the next line of the ad, the one that reads “Former Manhattan Prosecutors Fighting for Your Rights, Liberty and Integrity.” No, not the inexplicable use of integrity in the sentence, which troubles me only from the standpoint that it makes no sense. Most readers won’t even notice, and just like to see words strung together than comport with their vague image of what they are looking for in a criminal defense lawyer, despite the fact that the sentence makes no sense.
No, the part that disturbs me is the former prosecutors part. As I’ve explained before, I consider this type of advertising unethical. The reason is simple: It plays upon the misconceptions of the public and is intended to mislead. There are two components to this:
So he sent me a link and asked me what I thought of the ad. I was immediately repulsed by the face that appeared on my screen. “No, you idiot,” he responded. Not that. The advertisement on the other side of the page. This one…
That’s ugly, but likely effective. Put aside the question of whether a law firm really wants the sort of “clients” that Avvo has to offer, consisting primarily of those seeking free answers to inane questions. Obviously, they do or they wouldn’t advertise. After all, who doesn’t seek defendants whose opening salvo is, “why should I have to pay a lawyer if I’m innocent?”
But are they the “Top Client Rated Criminal Defense Attorney in New York?” Probably, according to how one defines that. If it’s defined as the lawyer who has asked more misdemeanor defendants to go to Avvo and write something nice about him, then I suspect that Jeremy Saland (Avvo Rating 8.1) is the lawyer with more client ratings than anybody else in town, with 16 client ratings to his name.
Does that mean anything? Well, it beats the hell out of 16 clients complaining about you, that’s for sure. On the other hand, most lawyers don’t seek client ratings as part of their marketing campaign. Some, myself included, tell our happy clients not to do so, though I would expect that those lawyers with a volume practice would have an advantage regardless.
Does this mean there should be a rush for other lawyers with high volume practices to get their clients to write nice things about them? Maybe, if this is how they want to promote themselves.
But the balance of the advertisement is more unsavory. Top Criminal Defense Firm? Not even the qualification.”One of the…?” Puffery, for sure, but too much so? After all, this is an advertisement, and the purpose of an Advertisement is to sell, right? If you can’t throw some hyperbole into an ad, where you can you throw it? And it could be worse. At least it didn’t say “and all the other lawyers suck.” The day will come when someone puts that in an advertisement, when there’s nowhere left to go.
The part that disturbs me the most is the next line of the ad, the one that reads “Former Manhattan Prosecutors Fighting for Your Rights, Liberty and Integrity.” No, not the inexplicable use of integrity in the sentence, which troubles me only from the standpoint that it makes no sense. Most readers won’t even notice, and just like to see words strung together than comport with their vague image of what they are looking for in a criminal defense lawyer, despite the fact that the sentence makes no sense.
No, the part that disturbs me is the former prosecutors part. As I’ve explained before, I consider this type of advertising unethical. The reason is simple: It plays upon the misconceptions of the public and is intended to mislead. There are two components to this:
The pitch is intended to capitalize on a basic misperception by the public, that the skills one develops as a prosecutor, characterized as “experience in criminal law,” translate into the skills one requires as a criminal defense lawyer. As has been discussed ad naseum, there is no intrinsic connection between the two. Indeed, the transition from the dark side to the light is often painful for former prosecutors, who mistook the love they received from the court as personal rather than institutional. Suddenly, all those things that made their efforts successful as a prosecutor were gone, and they found the defense side to be painfully difficult. While some former prosecutors make spectacular criminal defense lawyers, some are miserable failures.
As honest former prosecutors acknowledge, their stint in the district attorneys office provided little of value in gaining the skills needed to do criminal defense. But that’s not the worst of it.
I wonder whether Avvo vets advertisements for their content. I would imagine not, being far more concerned that the check, rather than the advertisement, is good. But if I’m wrong about this, no doubt General Counsel Josh King will correct me, and note that I’m just being an abrasive ass about it. It could happen. So the advertisement is right there on the page when one looks for New York Criminal Defense Lawyers, a consumer service brought to you by the good folks at Avvo.
So I told my buddy that while I didn’t think much of the advertisement, he shouldn’t fret about it. After all, it’s on Avvo. Somebody has to field all the calls and emails looking for pro bono representation. Better these guys than us.
A secondary implication, which is often suggested, and sometimes overtly claimed, is that by being a former prosecutor, a criminal defense lawyer has some inside track to getting his old buddies to let him have special sweetheart deals, or that he’s got some special friendships with the judges before whom he appeared day after day after day, who will do him (and therefore you, dear client) special favors that would not come your way but for his inside connections.That former prosecutors try to perpetuate the myth that they have insider connections that will inure to the benefit of clients is deeply troubling. Potential clients eat this stuff up. They want to believe that this is all some game, and they can win by buying themselves the “right” lawyer who can whisper something into the right ear and get them a quick and easy walk. So what if it’s a lie? It brings in clients. Sure, it undermines what little integrity the system has, playing on the worst beliefs of dishonesty and gamesmanship, but it brings in clients. And isn’t that what advertising is supposed to do?
I wonder whether Avvo vets advertisements for their content. I would imagine not, being far more concerned that the check, rather than the advertisement, is good. But if I’m wrong about this, no doubt General Counsel Josh King will correct me, and note that I’m just being an abrasive ass about it. It could happen. So the advertisement is right there on the page when one looks for New York Criminal Defense Lawyers, a consumer service brought to you by the good folks at Avvo.
So I told my buddy that while I didn’t think much of the advertisement, he shouldn’t fret about it. After all, it’s on Avvo. Somebody has to field all the calls and emails looking for pro bono representation. Better these guys than us.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These guys are sleazebags. I had my own experience coming accross their web presence. In retrospect, I’m not sure how big a deal it was, but it was certainly very disconcerting at the time. I had been representing clients in a regulatory matter that unfortunately (and wrongly) turned criminal. I turned to google to see what the press and/or blogosphere were saying about the matter after the indictments came down. Sure enough, I came across this firm’s blog which purported to do a news story about my clients and then transitioned into a “these are serious charges and require good criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors at our firm can help you, blah, blah, blah” meme. I suppose it was worded so that technically they weren’t directly soliciting my clients, but the whole thing left an awful taste in my mouth.
At what point does sleazy marketing backfire, i.e., when do you create a sleazy enough web presence such that enough lawyers know of you and when asked, hey, I found these guys on the web, what do you know about them, and there is a universal answer of they suck?
I wonder if the new meme will be “you are what Avvo says you are.”
Although you don’t like the “former prosecutor” reference, presumably, it is factually accurate. The “top client rated attorney in New York” is not. Top client-rated does not refer to number of ratings generated. Because on Avvo, clients give “reviews” not ratings. Clients give reviews, the Avvo algorithm gives the rating, based on reviews, endorsements, etc…. For the ad to mean that the firm has the most number of reviews then it should say “Attorney with the top number of client reviews in New York.” (assuming that is true). The phrase “top client rated” suggests that the firm has a 10 rating and further that it is the only firm to have a 10 rating. That fact is readily disproved by your bio and others who have “10” ratings that appear on the same page, beneath this firm’s 8.1
Second, if attorney websites in NY are required to have advertising disclaimers, shouldn’t a communication that is clearly an advertisement have a disclaimer on it? The Avvo site indicates that it is listed as an ad, but the ad itself does not have the disclaimer. I also don’t think that Avvo should be responsible for policing lawyer ads, though I am sure that some will disagree with me on that point.
Excellent points, especially the disclaimer. As for expecting Avvo to police the advertisements, that it’s Avvo makes things a bit different in my mind. After all, I’m told that Avvos exist for the benefit of the legal consumer community. Does that stop at the cash register?
I disagree that the mere mention in advertising of the fact that one is a former prosecutor is, ipsso facto, unethical or is intended to imply special deal making powers with the current prosecutors or judges. First, the ad explicitly references the Manhattan DA’s office, so presumably the “special” deals are not available elsewhere. More importantly, however, is that there are skills acquired as a prosecutor that can be very useful and relevant to a defense lawyer. For example, active and ambitious ADA’s can try loads more cases and write and argue many more appeals that a defense lawyer generally can in the same period of time. Top prosecutors’ offices have highly skilled lawyers to mentor younger ones, as well as formal training programs. There are also aspects of criminal practice that can only be experienced in a prosecutors office – taking statements from suspects, interviewing victim-witnesses, presenting matters to a grand jury, conducting a grand jury investigation, dealing with law enforcement agencies – the list can go on. All of those experiences can be very useful when a prosecutor transitions to the defense. Concededly, an advertising blurb that one was a prosecutor doesn’t convey the all the possible ways that that may be helpful to an accused, but at least it is a conversation starter. To automatically infer that identification as a former prosecutor means that one has a special inside ability to get an otherwise unavailable deal, is simply unwarranted and unsupported.
Some people agree with you. They almost invariably have one thing in common, that they were former prosecutors. Of course, when being a former prosecutor is the best thing you can say about yourself as a criminal defense lawyer, such that it is highlighted in advertisements, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius immediately comes to mind.
Then again, other people disagree with you.
Of course, as you pointed out, their former prosecutor status is not the only thing in the ad. They first extol their high ratings as defense lawyers. Look, I’m not defending these lawyers or their ad, but simply pointing out the unjustified cynicism in saying that identification as former prosecutors means that there are special deals to be had. By the way, there are many life-long defense lawyers who readily acknowledge that never having been a prosecutor can result in experience gaps that they need to be cognizant of in their defense work.
I can’t think of any experience that doesn’t add something to the whole, and the fact that they worked as prosecutors isn’t the issue. It’s that they market themselves as former prosecutors. I’m aware of life-long criminal defense lawyers who market themselves as never having been a prosecutor, the point being that they never desired to be the guy who put other human beings in prison.
As for as their “high ratings as defense lawyers” is concerned, that has issues of its own, as already discussed.
I have to agree with Mike Shapiro here. I’ve been a defense attorney since 1982, but the skill sets which I acquired in my tenure as an ADA have been enormously helpful. The experience of trying cases, where you have the burden of proof BRD and must interview, prepare and examine witnesses is invaluable, as is the experience of preparing investigations, grand jury presentments, etc. I am proud of my service, and honestly think that I sought to do justice in my cases, not simply lock people up.I think that is true of most former prosecutors, although clearly not all. I am not defending this ad, however…I think the way it is written is simply puffery, and misleading to boot, and for that reason your post regarding it is on point, to that extent.
It’s okay, John. Posts like this tend to bring out the former prosecutors to defend their experience. I would be disappointed otherwise, though you should bear in mind that this blawg is neither a democracy nor a survey. By the way, best not to type your name in all caps, as it’s considered screaming and frowned upon.
Would that I were as computer savvy as my kids, Scott. I had the caps lock key down, and didn’t even notice.
No sweat. Happens all the time. Happy Holidays, John.
Two cents on being a former prosecutor-
If you want to go into criminal law out of law school you have about four options-
1) a prosecutor’s office
2) leagal aid or public defender’s office
3) associate at a large firm that does white collar criminal work, probably working under former AUSA’s, or
4) associate to a trench lawyer
In reverse order, I think associate to a trench lawyer can be hit or miss. It has the potential to be the best, but it depends on how the trench lawyer uses you. He may use you in a way that will never allow you to grow into his peer.
Being an associate at a large firm is probably pretty useless in terms of learning how to grow into a trial man. Although I hear the pay is good.
Thus, if you want to be immersed in the day to day of life in the criminal courts that leaves you with prosecutor or pd. Even though I’m a former prosecutor I’ll give the nod to being a pd as the best preparation for being a future private defense lawyer. Problem is, when we’re talking about the peanuts that either a pd or a new ada make, the extra two peanuts that the da’s office will pay may well make a difference to a recent grad. That’s a problem society will need to fix if it cares. Additionally, while a junior ada might occasionally feel like he has a crushing caseload, its nothing compared to the crushing caseload of a new pd who has to deal with a truly crushing caseload, real defendants, and walks into court everyday without the cloak of authority that’s commanded by the da’s office. In other words, its a harder job.
I’ve now forgotten why I thought this related to the original post, but thought I’d share.
Oh heck, you know how much I enjoy marginally tangentially related comments.
So, it its still not too far off, I’m curious, when a young man comes to you and says I’d like to be a criminal defense lawyer, what job should I look for right out of law school, what do you advise (after you talk about medical school and business school)?
First, you got it right about careers other than law. I always recommend that they forget about law and do something more productive with their lives. But if they won’t listen, the next answer is get any job you can. I have nothing against people who went into the prosecutor’s office from law school. I didn’t, but that’s me. My issue is with using it to deceive the public into believing things that are untrue.
Ah, the prosecutorial experience. What would I have done without it? Well, I would have learned to cross examine witnesses a lot earlier in my career. As this is generally regarded as a good thing for a defense lawyer, that would have been nice.
Did I learn a lot in my 10 year tenure as a prosecutor that translates into being an effective CDL? Not a lot. I have no inclination to go through Michael’s or John’s list and it will have to suffice to say that the important skills that a CDL needs are far different than those of a prosecutor.
As far as seeking justice goes (referring to John’s comment) I agree that many prosecutors would like to do justice. However, many of them would not know justice if it turned up in their coffee.
Then there is a “but” in both comments, i.e., both ultimately decide that the ad is inappropriate in one way or another. Well, yes, and that is because it trades on a former status. Do you really think someone reading the ad says “Golly Gee, with a prosecutorial skill set, how can I go wrong,” or rather maybe this guy has an “in”? I think the latter.
I do not advertise and were I to do so, would think it unsavory to mention that I am a former prosecutor. Nor do I belong to any of the “Former ADA” groups.
On a related subject — what do you guys think about honoring a prosecutor at a Criminal Defense Association Dinner?
Happy holidays to you and and the best for the new year.
For those non-lawyers who commented and wonder where their comments went, I took them down. This wasn’t a post for non-lawyers to speculate. This was an inside baseball post, and you aren’t on the team. Sorry.
I see that the offensive Avvo ad was removed today.. wonder if the posts here had any effect… By the way the quote below is from Crotty and Saland’s endorsements… gotta love it…
Endorsement from lawyer: Carlos Gonzalez , New York (NY), 5 months ago
Relationship: Opposing Counsel on matter
Endorsement: I worked with jeremy on a counterfeiting case. He was a tough opponent, and is an excelelnt attorney.
(sic)
Idiot prosecutor complementing his intellectual equal in third grade english… priceless.
My guess is that they were simply overcome by a sense of guilt and remorse, and “the posts here” had nothing to do with it. Nothing. Not a thing.
You left out at least one other option, which although I would not ever recommend, is the one I took. It’s hard. It’s scary. But (so far) it has worked for me.
I would agree, though, that the options you listed are probably better. Definitely easier.