Parker is the Long Beach-based personal injury attorney who vows, “I will fight for you,” in tacky television ads that recruit folks who have been in accidents, people fighting insurance companies for the money they believe is rightfully theirs.
Parker spends about a million dollars a year on advertising. Obviously, he wouldn’t be doing it if he didn’t get results.
His techniques, and the techniques of other advertising law firms, such as Jacoby & Meyers, do not sit well with the California Trial Lawyers Assn. The CTLA is the prime mover of AB3659, sponsored by Assemblyman Paul V. Horcher (R-Diamond Bar), which would eviscerate the low-brow legal ads by severely limiting what they can show and say.
“If anyone looks at these ads, there is a common message,” says CTLA spokesman Robert Forsyth. “You can make big bucks by ripping off the system (with) no risk at all. That is what is so bothersome about the advertising.”
The CTLA thinks that lawyer-advertisers like Parker demean the profession.
“The image of the balanced scales of justice,” CTLA President Douglas deVries says, “has given way to the image of accident victims calling their attorneys through toll-free numbers before calling their doctors or their loved ones.”
Says Parker: “I am proud of the fact that I represent the little guy and the little gal. They don’t know where to go for a lawyer. They don’t have doctor friends and lawyer friends who can tell them.”
Horcher says his bill, which would eliminate the TV testimonials that are the foundation of Parker’s ad campaigns, will “clean up attorney advertising in California.”
The bill will make Californians “safe” from personal injury lawyers by forbidding lawyers’ clients from appearing in ads, by allowing only the attorneys to appear on screen, and by forbidding fees and rates to be described as “cut-rate,” “lowest,” “discount” or “special.” (Acceptable alternatives would be “reasonable,” “moderate” and “very reasonable.”)
It would also require lawyers to inform consumers that they might be held liable for filing frivolous lawsuits. If attorneys appear in their ads, the bill will require them to say: “Each case is decided on its own facts and no one can guarantee a particular result. I can be disciplined by the State Bar for making any guarantees about the outcome of your case. If you file a meritless lawsuit, you can be sued in return. If you file a fraudulent lawsuit, you could go to jail.”
The bill, Horcher says, “prohibits advertising that appeals purely to emotions and fears and instead promotes advertising that informs consumers of their legal rights.”
“The time is now,” he says, “to force some truth in advertising on some mighty rich lawyers. “
The italics are mine.
*
Almost every week, readers call me to complain about lawyers.
Not once has the situation been related to a misleading ad or a personal injury case.
Nearly always it is about being ill-treated by lawyers hired to handle domestic breakups, property divisions, custody arrangements.
My callers feel screwed twice: once by the courts, once by their lawyers.
There is the single mother, hanging on by the skin of her teeth, raising an adolescent daughter. Her lawyer–who works for one of the most reputable firms in the city–failed to notify her ex-husband’s employer that he owed thousands in back child support. The ex-husband received a large lump payment from the employer before moving to another continent. She got nothing.
There is the woman who raised her four kids virtually alone and is now fighting her ex-husband, who wants half the value of her home even though he left years ago and never contributed to its upkeep. Her attorney seems to have a substance abuse problem, has failed to pay his dues to the state bar and won’t return her files so she can engage a new lawyer.
Who’s fighting for them?
*
Consumers deserve protection when they deal with attorneys. But this law is too extreme.
Telling people they can be sued if they bring frivolous lawsuits, for instance, is not a bad idea. But why scare them with talk of jail?
And why prevent lawyers from showing off clients who have prevailed in legal fights?
And if consumers really need the “protections” of the Horcher bill, where are the injured parties?
Why doesn’t the CTLA produce a client who has been harmed by an advertiser-attorney?
I’d be a whole lot more convinced that this isn’t a fight over a limited client pool–and dollars–if we had proof.
Show me the little guy or gal who’s been hurt. Otherwise, leave Larry Parker and his tacky testimonials alone.
* Robin Abcarian’s column is published Wednesdays and Sundays.