[Guest post by Aaron Worthing]
All of these videos are good, in the sense that they are hilariously awful, but for my money, the EzDivorce is the best one because you can tell he is working through some issues of his own.
Meanwhile, Corri Fetman always gets an honorable mention when we are talking about bad lawyer ads.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Powered by WordPress.
Corri is certainly pretty but she has got fake boobs. Too bad. One thing that seems to be common amoung lawyer ads is the “one great jesture trick” so that you remember who(m)? to call, like the guy pointing at the camera in one of the ads you posted.
There is an ad that runs here in Chicago for Brinkman & Brinkman (I am not sure if I have their name right!) where the guy wears a hat or puts on a hat at the end of his speil. He looks like a complete goof.
BTW, Aaron, you are a great addition to the Patterico experiment. Thanks for all of the interesting posts.
BT (74cbec) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:34 pmHoly crap that Mike Gallagher commercial is the most unprofessional crap I’ve ever seen.
I was going to start naming the worst lawyers in my area, but there’s no contest with ole’ Mike ‘wrestle your spouse in order to ruin their life’ Gallagher’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:40 pmDustin
personally i like how the rapping commercial, includes ads for the company that made the commercial. they are PROUD of this ad!
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:43 pmI thought the Divorce EZ ad was well conceived, just very poorly acted.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:43 pmThat last scene of the rap video is creeping me out. I used to live in the Dallas area, so I guess I should be glad I don’t watch a lot of TV.
You get almost no information that would lead a reasonable person to want to use that lawyer.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 2:47 pmRe: Corri….
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 4:22 pmThe question is, just what kind of business is she attempting to generate with all of this exposure?
Vastly more objective information is available now than ever has been available before to help the motivated consumer choose a lawyer.
But anyone who hires any of these lawyers, deserves what he or she gets.
Beldar (fa3a16) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:11 pmDustin
> You get almost no information that would lead a reasonable person to want to use that lawyer.
Oh, no, you get lots of information from those ads. you learn they are complete idiots and have no idea how to convince anybody of anything. you know not to hire them.
i mean its sort of like years ago when i was doing the law firm all day interviews. my friends are like, “you know, they are going to find the nicest 6 people to talk to you.”
“I know,” I said, “but it does answer one question. Can they find six nice people?”
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 10/19/2010 @ 8:28 pmThere ARE nice people at law firms?
AD-RtR/OS! (91b834) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:01 pmIt’s a close call but the Bully Lawyer ad bothered me the most. It’s bad enough when people think attorneys are jerks in their work but that ad suggests attorneys are born jerks.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:05 pmDRJ, what would it take to be able to show that ‘bully lawyer’ ad during a trial? Not that I suspect this attorney actually takes cases to trial, and he possibly just refers all his contacts to other attorneys for a fee (I don’t know this), but if I was sued by someone who probably picked a lawyer from this ad insinuating he’s the man for cheating money out of innocent parties, I would want to present this information to the court.
At any rate, I still think the “I ruined his New Year” divorce lawyer, with the ensuing wrestling, was the worst of them. If I was in a divorce (which thankfully is the last problem I worry about), I’d be tempted to interview all these nasty attorneys just to prevent them from representing my wife.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 9:15 pmI guess it would depend on the court, Dustin, but I doubt a judge would admit the attorney’s ad absent a suggestion of wrongdoing by the attorney. And if there were attorney misconduct, wouldn’t it be relevant to a contempt charge against the attorney himself, rather than admissible evidence in his client’s case?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:06 pmWell, it would be impossible to show that the client picked the attorney based on the ad, but in my book, a client who hires that attorney after watching that ad is not a credible witness.
Obviously he’s only indirectly promising to bully and cheat money out of innocent parties. Seems contemptuous of justice to me.
DRJ’s suspicion I’d need some actual wrongdoing by the attorney seems very reasonable. But unreasonable Dustin would have a hard time not asking the client directly if this ad helped him choose this attorney and insisting this establishes character. Also, my arms would wave around the entire time.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:26 pmWow, Dustin. I’ve been thinking a lot about lawyer advertising and the problems of misinformation and poor choices in the marketplace for legal services. But you’ve put a whole new tort reform spin on this.
Imagine if — as part of the jury selection process — when the court introduces each side’s lawyers, there were a rule requiring that, on motion by the opposing party, any TV ads run by such lawyers within the last three years had to be displayed to the jury?
Accountability … I’m liking this idea!
Beldar (fa3a16) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:30 pmHmmm. On further thought:
For the rule to work, it would have to include referring lawyers, not just trial counsel. Lots of the lawyers who spend the most on TV ads and billboards couldn’t try their way out of a paper bag, and they either settle cases or (on the good ones, to the extent they can identify those) refer them to more capable lawyers.
Beldar (fa3a16) — 10/19/2010 @ 10:43 pmThe law firm I was referencing yesterday was Binder & Binder. I saw their ad again last night.
BT (74cbec) — 10/20/2010 @ 6:38 amBT
Oh, we have those idiots down here in the DC area, too. And yeah, I fully concur with what you said about them.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 10/20/2010 @ 6:44 amI started out as a public defender, where I had no choice about what cases I took, and I made it a rule when I went solo to only take cases by referral. Not even a one line ad in the Yellow Pages. I still make it a rule that if I “solicit” a case, it’s pro bono. And I never accept or pay referral fees.
nk (db4a41) — 10/20/2010 @ 7:11 amOMG, I thought the Meat Loaf wannabe was the worst–who would hire a creepy lawyer like that?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 10/20/2010 @ 8:25 ambest ever unintentionally hilarious law firm website: http://www.brownlawllp.com/
Fav quote: “we bring deadly earnestness to our cases”
anon (9fdc72) — 11/20/2010 @ 8:46 pm