While the futurists keep pontificating about how the internet brings transparency to the “opaque” law, I keep seeing entrepreneurs trying to find new ways to glom a few shekels off the top by marketing lies to the unwary. A series of shameless twits came across my screen yesterday for a new co-op advertising scheme called Campus Lawyer. An underserved niche?
So this is transparency? “They’ll be sure to get you off”? Nothing misleading there, right?
What disturbs me most is that college kids who get in trouble, and it certainly happens, are a particularly vulnerable group. Old enough to be treated as adults. Immature enough to do stupid things. Smart enough to realize that they don’t want mommy to know they screwed up while dad is working two jobs to pay the tuition, yet stupid enough not to realize that this is just a marketing scheme.
The scheme is run by Sergio Smith, a marketer of sorts out of Boca Raton. It strikes me that he’s onto a pretty good idea in terms of a group of people who will need the help of a lawyer. It also strikes me that his approach is appalling.
There is a click-through disclaimer at the very bottom of the page, which no one will find or read. In the meantime, the ad copy makes it appear that Campus Lawyers is the firm with “experience attorneys nationwide,” who are “top rated lawyers.” Top rated? By Sergio?
One of the typical responses to such schemes, voiced by those who use or support the use of co-op advertising schemes, is whether there is any proof that anyone is fooled by deceptive marketing. The answer is self-evident: to the extent anyone falls for it, they’re fooled.
Nowhere does the page inform a reader that this is merely a co-op advertising scheme, where attorneys who want/need the business pay to become part of the group. At the same times, it’s deliberately framed in a way designed to give a false impression, that it’s a firm, that the attorneys are somehow vetted for quality and appropriateness and that the larger entity, Campus Lawyers, has some connection to law. Sergio may be a smart marketer, but he’s no lawyer. Did you happen to see Sergio’s name anywhere on the page? In fact, did you happen to see any entity other than the amorphous Campus Lawyers?
So having come up with the (admittedly smart) realization that there is an untapped group out there who may well need legal representation, has no clue where to turn and is particularly naive and vulnerable, Sergio has crafted a business, is promoting the daylights out of it and, apparently, is signing up lawyers.
Whether the lawyers are great or horrible is neither known nor the point. The point is that this fabulous future of legal marketing isn’t honest and takes advantage of kids. I can’t blame Sergio for his failure to adhere to the ethical obligations of honesty that are demanded of lawyers. He’s no lawyer. But I can certainly question how any ethical lawyer, taking even a casual view of the scheme (and that horrendous video), can feel comfortable being a part of this.
I know, you’re a wonderful lawyer who provides excellent representation, so joining up with a somewhat questionable co-op advertising scheme is just a way to bring clients through the door where you can perform your magic. Are this makes being party to this scheme cool with you, right? And this is transparency?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m pretty sure getting a client off is a violation of ethics rules in most jurisdictions.
I assume you mean advertising that you will get a client off is a violation. Getting them off is generally considered a good thing.
Doesn’t that technically depend upon the state and what one means by “getting a client off?” 😉
I bet there are some states where she could assure a college boy or two that she could get them off. Oh wait. I don’t think that’s what she meant.
They misspelled “attorneys” on their web site. I find that funny; and kind of ironic.
So I see. I missed that (as apparently did Sergio). Far more ironic than funny for me.
A shark as a logo? Really? Is that now a good thing? I did not get the memo.
Yeah, I want a skilled liar and cheat helping me, because, well, they would only lie to and cheat the other guys, never me. Right?
It is even a step down from the “aggressive litigator” types who, if they really are aggressive (as opposed to zealous), just prove them to be obstinate jerks who alienate the attorneys opposing them and from whom they are trying to get something.
But sharks are cool, and this shark is really, really cool. No, really.
Yes, it’s the double entendre that keeps it legal (ish).
I assume this is in response to something. If only you have use the “reply to this” button, we would know what.
After seeing the shark logo I began to wonder if there was an onion lurking about.
The Onion went out of business. It couldn’t keep up with reality.
i don’t know how i missed that incredibly awesomely cool shark logo the first time i looked at this.
My only thought is that there was too much other stuff to make fun of about this to notice 🙂
Sorry, busy getting off. Not paying attention to formatting.
No. I think our ethics rules say you can’t get a client off unless you got them off before they were a client.
That can happen. At least, that’s what Leo tells me.
You kids and your lingo. So fresh.
Sharks are definitely a cooler logo than the more appropriate lamprey. Or bag of pus.
The sad thing about it is that the reputational effects of being a good lawyer do not translate into effective marketing for the most part. (The exception to this are the very high end lawyers who have 20 plus years of experience and who can pick and choose clients referred to them.) Hiring a lawyer is an impulse buy for most people and most people have no clue about what differentiates one lawyer from another or even how to ask the right questions. (This is not unique to lawyers, but cuts across all professions, from plumbing to doctors.) The problem is particularly pronounced in lower end cases that would have someone make decision on the basis of an ad like this.
As to your final point: “I know, you’re a wonderful lawyer who provides excellent representation, so joining up with a somewhat questionable co-op advertising scheme is just a way to bring clients through the door where you can perform your magic.”
I don’t participate in coop advertising, whether it’s this stuff, or legalmatch pseudo-referral services. But let’s imagine a plumber coop advertising service – some scantily clad girl says that Campus Plumbers will fix your pipes. Because you take pride in being a plumber, you find the whole scheme at the very least distasteful. But you’re a good plumber, and figure, so long as it makes financial service, why don’t you at least get hired to fix pipes the right way. Is that offensive? Unethical?
Is it that being a lawyer is just a totally different type of activity different from any other service provided in the world that would make this kind of advertising particularly loathesome?
I’m not quite sure I know, because the lawyer example seems much more distasteful than the plumber example which just seems funny. But I’d like to hear why.
While your comment suggests you’re a lawyer, your question suggests you’re not, which is a matter of some concern. If you are, then the fact that you ask whether “being a lawyer is just a totally different type of activity different from any other service provided in the world” is pretty troubling.
Yes, lawyers are a “totally different type of activity.” We are subject to an ethical and disciplinary code, the violation of which could result in sanctions, up to and including disbarment. We are prohibited from conduct that is false,deceptive and misleading, and that includes the way lawyers market. We can’t do it ourselves. We can’t engage with others who do it. And we can never guarantee a result.
While some lawyers push the envelope, others adhere to our conduct of conduct not merely to avoid sanctions, but because we believe that integrity and dignity are core values of the profesion. This isn’t to say a plumber can’t share these values, but his license isn’t contingent on adherence to a code of conduct.
And please note that these are comments, not free questions and answers. I’m sure CampusLawyer would be happy to give you answers during the free consultation.
The shark is an especially interesting logo choice for a Florida-based company, given Florida’s relatively strict limitations on attorney advertising. For instance, in 2005, the Florida Supreme Court subjected 2 attorneys to bar discipline for using the phone number 1800PITBULL and using a pitbull in advertising. See Fla. Bar v. Pape, 918 So. 2d 240 (2005).
Well, it’s certainly easy for someone who, on occasion, has the luxury of pushing back a $30,000 retainer and says “oh, I’m too busy to take your case” to fail to consider what might go on down here where the law is actually practiced. Maybe you read about it in an Amy Bach book or something.
It’s a different world down here where questions can be asked about how different the practice of law really is from the practice of plumbing (setting aside for a moment that some Bar exists). But I’m glad to know you’re concerned about us.
Ah. Now I see where you’re coming from. I am concerned, both for you and about you. But lose the chip on your shoulder that because you’re struggling, you’re absolved from ethics and desperation allows you to do anything that will bring in a buck.
If it’s only about money,then be a plumber. But if you don’t give a damn about integrity, then you can’t be a lawyer. It’s part of the package, whether you’re sorry you bought it or not. You do not get to pick and choose those parts of being a lawyer that are good for you while ignoring the obligations that go with it. If you can’t accept this, you have no business practicing law.
And Amy Bach (who I know) would be the first to tell you that it’s attitudes like yours, where ethics mean nothing if they don’t serve your personal interest and put money in your pocket, that give rise to ordinary injustice.
Why would you think a plumber is just about the money? That’s bizarre.
CampusLawyer sounds interesting. I might work there on weekends for free.
You just like the gal in the video. You’re so predictable.
Your reading comprehension needs significant work.
Hopelessly shallow, too.
Isn’t that called pro boner?
Don’t encourage him.
Name’s Hull. Buy you a drink?