Whats up with all the ads for law firms?

At a Glance

• Historical Context of Lawyer Advertising - ‘But it wasn’t that long ago that none of these ads would be allowed, not because they’re tacky, but because for most of the 20th century, lawyers were basically not allowed to advertise.’ This shows the transformation in legal advertising, highlighting a significant change in the profession’s public interaction.

• Humorous Lawyer Ads - ‘Dude, pass this! Dude, wheelies!’ and ‘It’s a me, your lawyer.’ These quotes from lawyer advertisements add humor to the episode, showcasing how legal advertising has taken on creative and sometimes absurd methods to capture public attention.

• Serious Legal Battle - ‘Their case went to the highest court in Arizona. They lost. But that meant they could take it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.’ This point emphasizes the serious legal struggle Bates and Osteen underwent, underscoring their determination to change advertising laws for lawyers.

• Free Speech Argument - ‘I submit that all of the elements which the court found commanded First Amendment protection in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy are present in this case.’ This argument made at the Supreme Court highlights the pivotal moment where commercial speech began to be considered under First Amendment protection, a serious development in constitutional law.

• Impact of the Supreme Court Decision - ‘Lawyers were now allowed to advertise.’ This simple statement marks a monumental shift in legal practice and public information, fundamentally changing how legal services are marketed and perceived.

• Cultural Reflection - ‘Is there anything more quintessentially American than advertisements for lawyers?’ This question reflects on the cultural identity of America, humorously suggesting that lawyer advertisements are as American as jazz or abstract expressionism.

• Economic Argument for Advertising - ‘The study showed that in the states where advertising of prescription drugs was permitted, the price of those drugs dropped dramatically as compared to the states where it wasn’t permitted.’ This showcases the economic impact of advertising, a serious point that supports the broader implications of free commercial speech.

• Funny yet Serious Reflection - ‘Alan says, yeah, when he’s watching TV nowadays, he does find some of those ads distasteful. But in the end, he has no regrets.’ This combines humor with a serious reflection on the consequences of legal victories that have allowed widespread commercial advertising, including for prescription drugs.

What to Do

• ‘Consider advertising for visibility’ - ‘To attract clients and make your services known, especially if you’re starting a new firm or business.’

• ‘Understand the value of commercial speech’ - ‘It enables the free flow of economic information, which is essential for a competitive market.’

• ‘Focus on providing valuable information to consumers’ - ‘Advertising can help consumers make informed decisions and potentially drive down prices.’

• ‘Challenge existing norms if they hinder progress’ - ‘Innovative legal theories or approaches can lead to significant changes and open up new possibilities for many industries.’

• ‘Recognize the importance of access to information’ - ‘People have a right to receive information, which is crucial for making informed choices in a free society.’

What to Get

• Mini Dirt Bike - Used by the Texas Law Hawk in his advertisement to engage potential clients.

Summary

In this episode, the hosts dive into the intriguing history of advertising within the legal profession in the United States. They begin by highlighting some of the most flamboyant and eye-catching lawyer advertisements that have emerged over the years, including a lawyer known as the Texas Law Hawk and others who use creative antics to attract clients.

The main narrative explores how, historically, lawyers were prohibited from advertising their services. This was primarily because the legal profession deemed advertising as unprofessional and unethical, fearing it would lead to a decline in service quality and an increase in unscrupulous practices. The hosts discuss how this changed in the 1970s, focusing on the pivotal case involving two young lawyers, John Bates and Van Osteen, who challenged the existing norms by placing an advertisement for their legal services in a newspaper. This act of defiance led to a significant legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bates and Osteen marked a monumental shift, recognizing advertisements by lawyers as a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This decision not only allowed lawyers to advertise but also set a precedent that impacted other types of commercial speech, including advertisements for pharmaceuticals and other products.

The hosts reflect on the implications of this change, noting that while it has led to greater visibility for legal services and more options for consumers, it has also resulted in an overwhelming number of advertisements, including some that many might find tacky or distasteful. The episode concludes with a broader discussion on the balance between free speech and the potential downsides of pervasive advertising in modern society.

Overall, the episode provides a compelling look at how a legal battle over advertising rights transformed the landscape of the legal profession and commercial speech in the United States, highlighting both the positive outcomes and the challenges that have emerged as a result.