Much of
lawyer advertising requires attorneys to spend time assessing which keywords are the most searched, which advertising channels are likely to provide the greatest return on investment, and more.
Not exact matches
Is it really the end of the world to
require lawyers to post attorney
advertising in their footers?
Because some material on this web site constitutes
lawyer advertising, and this web site may be viewed from anywhere in the United States, particular disclosures are
required by the rules of some states.
Just ask Vancouver - based
lawyer Steve Szentesi of Steve Szentesi Law Corp. who works in
advertising and marketing law, and recently worked on a file that
required him to apply Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation to a shopping related app.
People making a decision about which
lawyer to choose in a case should consider The Florida Bar's
required disclaimer applicable to
lawyer advertising: «The hiring of a
lawyer is an important decision that should not be solely based upon advertisements.
They also
require the
lawyer to submit a copy of the advertisement to the Attorneys»
Advertising Commission, along with a filing fee of $ 50.00.
Modern legal
advertising strategies
require that
lawyers are prepared to address consumers» needs at every possible touchpoint.
The revision also would
require lawyers to retain copies of all written
advertising, including Web sites and communications that may be accessed by computer, for at least one year.
As a Virtual Assistance company that serves many legal clients, I would like to suggest adding to your article the requirement that
Lawyers check with their state bar to see if its mandatory that they add the
required advertising notice «THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES» to their emails when promoting services or products.
More recently, the rules have been amended to regulate awards used for marketing purposes,
require identification of whether a licensee is a
lawyer or paralegal, and prohibit second - opinion
advertising.
Feb. 8, 2010)(dismissing disciplinary complaints against Connecticut
lawyers for participating in ClearBankruptcy.com and TotalBankruptcy.com, noting that the websites did not endorse participating
lawyers but bore disclaimers to the contrary and
required potential clients to initiate contact by visiting the websites and voluntarily providing information); Arizona Op. 11 - 02 (
lawyer may join an internet group advertisement listing no more than one
lawyer for each zip code if program does not imply endorsement, if it is labelled as
advertising, and if
lawyer has paid for exclusive zip code listing); District of Columbia Op. 302 (
lawyers may pursue legal work through paying a fee to access web page where potential clients post requests for bids on legal work); Nassau County (N.Y.) Ethics Op. 01 - 4, 17 Law.