It's APRL in Dallas: Live Blogging the APRL Conference
Right now, I am in Dallas attending the Mid-year meeting of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL). Or as I call it, the Three-days-in-a-random-city-arguing-about-legal-ethics-with-the-quirkiest-most-outspoken-people-you'll-ever-care-to-meet Conference. APRL meetings are always a rollicking good time.
For anyone considering a career in legal ethics - or who just has an interest in the practice area - I recommend joining APRL. In addition to biannual meetings that are fun and informative, APRL has a great ListServ. It is a wonderful resource where you can ask questions on all kinds of ethics topics, and get answers from leading practitioners around the country.
This morning I participated in a lively panel entitled "Outlaw" or "Artlaw": Part I of Advertising in the Digital Age.
We watched a series of entertaining lawyer commercials and discussed whether they violated any of the ethics rules; and - perhaps more importantly - whether the lawyer advertising rules make sense in the modern world.
Here are the ads we viewed:
Adam Riposa: I'm a Lawyer
Steve Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Qk6QPzuIc
Naso Law: You Need a Lawyer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxDlrZTafhI&feature=player_embedded#!
German divorce lawyer http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_JpmhLrx4KY (The German translates roughly to "This wouldn't have happened with a divorce lawyer.")
Saul Goodman: Better Call Saul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPd67CEL54E
This last example is not a real lawyer - he plays one on the t.v. show Breaking Bad.
One of the themes that emerged in the panel discussion is whether we really need to regulate lawyer advertising as a disciplinary matter, when there are already regimes in place that regulate advertising in order to ensure that consumers are not being deceived. The answer seems to turn, in part, on whether we believe that one of our policy goals is to enhance the reputation of the profession by regulating taste. If not, why isn't enough to prohibit false, misleading or unfair advertising and leave it at that?
You can find out more about joining APRL at www.aprl.net.
The American Lawyer's Code of Conduct (Public Discussion Draft, June, 1980) had a Comment encouraging lawyers to advertise and solicit clients, but included the following Rule:
7.1. A lawyer shall not knowingly make any representation that is materially false or misleading, and that might reasonably be expected to induce reliance by a member of the public in the selection of counsel.
Other Rules in Part VII (Informing the Public About Legal Services) dealt with special situations, such as soliciting a member of the public after the lawyer has been told that the person does not want to receive communications from the lawyer.
Posted by: Monroe Freedman | February 08, 2013 at 04:40 PM
What might not be obvious from these videos -- but became clear from Adam Reposa's presentation at the APRL conference -- is that Adam Reposa is a cause lawyer. ("a cause lawyer is one who works out of the professional mainstream . . . engaging in moral activism for marginalized clients" http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/sarasche.htm)
Posted by: Kathleen Clark | February 08, 2013 at 06:12 PM
Kathleen, I don't doubt that. I've always thought that corporate start-up lawyers are cause lawyers, too.
Posted by: John Steele | February 08, 2013 at 06:55 PM