The Choice of a Lawyer Is an Important Decision and Should Not Be Based Solely Upon This Blog
I grew up around St. Louis, so there are a few things that I not only know by heart, but are pretty much instinct at this point. I know that if I mention Buckley, I get $200 off the price of my car. I know that Dave Sinclair is thankful and wants me to know his address. But, most of all, I know that if I have a personal injury lawsuit, I call Brown & Crouppen at 421-HELP.
Brown & Crouppen was started by two gents named Ron Brown (not to be confused with Don Brown at the entrance to The Hill) and Terry Crouppen. Now, for years, personal injury lawyers and used car salesmen have had local commercials in St. Louis that play 23 hours a day on all the local channels. Watching so many Brown & Crouppen commericals during Saturday morning cartoons on channel 11 is probably what drove me to choose a career path in law.
But there is a new Missouri law threatening these media gems from reaching our TVs, radios, and mailboxes. What I don’t understand about the new law is the harm, if any, that these ads are causing.
Lawmakers claim these ads influence individuals too much in their decisions when choosing an attorney. But there should not be a law restricting what lawyers can advertise because individuals do not put enough effort into their searches for the proper attorney. When you pick a lawyer from an infomercial, what exactly are you expecting? Atticus Finch? No. You should be expecting exactly what the commerical promises: a lawyer with a firm who specializes in whatever area of law they say, whether it be personal injury or family law.
Part of the proposed law would require any disclaimer to be read at the same pace as the phone number. Why should lawyers alone be forced to expand their disclaimers? Surely, if lawyers have to read their disclaimers slowly, then every other disclaimer should be slowed down as well. Why should Terry Crouppen be barred from advertising his services in the manner he wishes? He’s a Missouri business owner just like Ted Drewes, even if he doesn’t “put a little wiggle in it.”





I don’t know about you guys… but I definitely trust the guy with the eye patch.
Comment by Pat Eckelkamp — November 24, 2008 @ 4:27 p.m.
That’s Brown & Brown. Duh.
Comment by Jacob Voss — November 24, 2008 @ 4:29 p.m.
This is another one of those issues that gets me going. We have laws in place to deal with defamation, false advertising, and fraud, which are the sole legitimate reasons that people should be concerned about the substance of a company’s advertising. But bar associations all across the nation want to safeguard the “dignity of the profession” by restricting what an attorney can call their firm and what symbols they can use to represent their firm–a couple of years ago a Florida attorney publicly reprimanded attorneys who used a pitbull in their logo and used the phone number 1-800-PIT-BULL. I know that some of these pro-regulation types are very sincere and well-intentioned, but those good intentions cannot justify interfering with someone else’s livelihood, dangit!!
Comment by Dave Roland — November 24, 2008 @ 4:43 p.m.
You know, I really should have titled this post “The Last Refuge for the Persecuted Lawyer.”
Comment by Jacob Voss — November 26, 2008 @ 10:05 a.m.