I have previously written about how some attorneys continue to ignore bar standards encouraging firms to show basic professionalism and decorum in advertising, including truly bizarre pitches for clients. The vast majority of lawyers show great restraint in deference to the standards of our profession. But there remains a minority of lawyers to have joined a race to the bottom in creating juvenile, unprofessional advertisements like Bryan Wilson in Texas. Wilson has opted for an obnoxious advertisement showing himself screaming about being the “Texas Law Hawk.” While many relish lawyers demeaning themselves and find this type of ad funny, it is a disgrace to the profession and no doubt an embarrassment to Texas Tech University where he acquired his legal education. Apparently, the lessons on professionalism did not stick with young Wilson despite reportedly graduating at the top of his class.
Wilson, 29, screams into a camera that he is “Bryan Wilson! Texas Law Hawk!” He appears to be modeling his law firm on the stereotype of a used car dealer or low-rent pitchman. As with many who pander to the lowest common denominator, it has brought him the notoriety that he so craves. His ad has garnered more than half a million views.
His law firm site proclaims that he is “Loud and proud of his Texas roots.” That much is obvious. He is also a loud and rather pathetic insult to the entire profession.
The problem is that we have to protect grotesque figures like Wilson in order to protect free speech. Many of us agreed with the Supreme Court that the regulation and prohibition on certain types of advertising was a denial of free speech. Law schools and bar associations have worked to convince attorneys to maintain the professionalism expected of lawyers and most do. Then there are the Bryan Wilsons who clearly care little for the profession or its values.
The standards for legal advertisements have been evolving from the time of a virtual prohibition (which clearly denies free speech) to what in some states is now a race to the bottom. Casino has in the past been leading that race to the bottom in his adverts. Georgia is one of the states that has abandoned the attempt to enforce standards of good taste and professionalism in advertisements.
It may be time that the bar associations need to develop a review process that publicly rates lawyers based on their professional standing, including the propriety and professionalism of their ads. While we may not be able take their licenses, we can inform the public of the lack professionalism of some lawyers and denounce those like Wilson to belittle our profession. Bar associations in my view have an institutional right to ranking lawyers based on their public conduct and adherence to professional standards. I also believe that aspects of Wilson’s ads raise serious ethical questions that could be brought before the bar. He appears to give legal advice on things like refusing to take breathalyzers. The blanket advice would likely be harmful or disadvantageous for some suspects.
The state bar rules include the following:
RULE 7.02 COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING A LAWYER’S SERVICES
(a) A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the qualifications or the services of any lawyer or firm. A communication is false or misleading if it:
(1) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading;
(2) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate these rules or other law;
(3) compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be substantiated by reference to verifiable, objective data;
(4) states or implies that the lawyer is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official; or
(5) designates one or more specific areas of practice in an advertisement in the public media or in a written solicitation unless the advertising lawyer is competent to handle legal matters in each such area of practice.
It is hard to say whether these advertisements by Wilson crossed the line but it is certainly worth a review by the Texas bar. Of course, no one can prevent an attorney like Wilson from making a complete ass of himself. However, these ads combine sweeping legal claims with highly unprofessional communications. Surely someone in the Texas bar might want to take a closer look to consider whether young Wilson should pursue more suitable lines of work like pitching Demolition Derbies or selling Sham Wow packages.
I had to add another note. ModernMiner said:
This [ad] is merely a symptom of “too many lawyers” and illustrates the lengths (or depths) some of them must go (stoop) to for the purpose of getting clients.
Bingo. And again, it goes back to the bar associations not doing anything to educate prospective lawyers about the saturation of the legal job profession and not actively opposing the opening of new law schools.
I normally agree with JT, but the notion of bar associations coming up with credible ratings of attorneys is absurd. I’ve never seen a credible rating system for attorneys. Martindale Hubbell has the most prominent one and that’s a joke. The rating system is going to be inevitably political. Heck, Yelp would do better rating attorneys.
Remember too these are the same bar associations who have done NOTHING to prevent the flooding of the job market with attorneys and the opening of new law schools, many of dubious quality. Bar associations have done little to improve the profession.
And what about those states, like Indiana, where bar association membership is voluntary? If you think the Indiana State Bar Association is going to give high ratings to attorneys who aren’t members, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
So there are actually some folks out there who hold the legal profession in high esteem? Good to know. I think if a poll were conducted of the common man, the legal profession would end up near the bottom of the list. Oh wait, some folks have done this:
* 2013: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/11/public-esteem-for-military-still-high/
This is merely a symptom of “too many lawyers” and illustrates the lengths (or depths) some of them must go (stoop) to for the purpose of getting clients.
All publicity is good, even appearing on a blog.
There seems to be no accountability for bad lawyers, even those who steal clients money, as long as the client doesn’t have enough funds to hire another attorney to sue. And who knows if the new attorney will just take fees and not do the job. So many, even those with “professional” ads seem to do everything they can to draw things out, that is, until the money runs out.
Well, Professor, how is that working out for Martindale-Hubbell? MH rating attorneys is a joke. Larger firms rig the rating and sometimes have attorneys with just a few years experience rated AV. The same rigged ratings would happen if bar associations run the rig.
Let the public rate attorneys. I guarantee you the ad in question isn’t bringing quality clients and cases in, its probably just supplying a settlement mill like most personal injury ads do.
It’s a side of America that amuses the world. It doesn’t amuse the other side of America, however.
It’s on the side with Trump, Carson, and the rest of the Republicans running for President. Or, perhaps we all really need a good laugh.
Wow, JT, really? Pretty harsh for a guy who made an ad that is admittedly kind of dumb and just not funny. How exactly does this ad “demean” the profession? Can you flesh that out? Or is it just a superficial and intuitive perceived connection between decorum and “professionalism,” and nothing more, that’s at work here?
I rarely disagree with you but I think you’re way off in attacking this guy. And that is indeed what you’ve done here.
This is the worst attorney ad I have seen. I actually think they serve a purpose, showing the mindset of too many barristers in this country.
On the positive side, he did provide an employment opportunity to a midget.
He even added a little person to the show. While it may not be up to the professor’s standards, it’s the type of ad that a less educated, more emotional, backwoods thinking American public relishes. What’s not to like? A motorbike, a clown cop, a forced breathalyzer test, a big bird, a scary mask, screaming and the aforementioned little person with a big pencil. Many Americans love loud, obnoxious, and boorish, so this works quite well in that viewer profile. He is likely a very busy lawyer….
Some person who has seen the ad and follows the dork’s advice and looses their drivers license should then sue the dork for malpractice. The lawyer is giving legal advice, albeit over the airwaves, and if the advice is wrong then it is malpractice. Damages can be obtained in a suit against the dork. The jury who hears this case will make up their mind right after the first exhibit is shown to them at trial– which is the video.
Texas has gone to Hell in a handbasket.
What we should do is end licensing for lawyers. It clearly does not protect the public from incompetent and unethical lawyers and instead seduces people into believing that because a lawyer is licensed by the state, he must be competent and ethical. It’s just a protection racket for those who are able to get the licenses. We should also separate the bar association from the state and make it a totally voluntary organization.
The bad thing is I guarantee that he will get a bunch of business from this ad. Unfortunately, it’s what much of the public wants and expects.
(music- Jerry Jeff Walker- Good Ol Boys)
We’re Rednecks, We’re Rednecks!
We don’t know our arse from a hole in the ground!
We’re Rednecks, Rednecks!
We are keeping the clients down.
We are no neck oil men in Texas.
Good ol boys from Tennessee.
College men from LSU.
Went in dumb come out dumb too.
Hustlin round Atlanta in our alligator shoes…
We are keeping the dumb schmucks down.
In all fairness, there are very few ways that lawyers as a whole could lower their reputations.
And as online lawyers go, I’d say JT and VC is about it for lawyers adding to their reputation.
So I don’t mind the Texas Law Hawk, better him that the vast majority of lawyers who do far less for society than they do for themselves.
I agree with Bambam, in that bar associations are not to judge or valuate their mebres in the name of the public.
>Says Jonathan: “we can inform the public of the lack professionalism of some lawyers. Bar associations in my view have an institutional right to ranking lawyers based on their public conduct and adherence to professional standards.”
Really, why do you hold the potential clients in so low esteem? Anybody looking for a lawyer – or a plumber, for that matter – can check for himself the public conduct and – ad maioram – the advertisements of the selected professional. If he doesn’t like them he’ll look for another one. If he doesn’t check, he’ll have to take at least part of the blame if and when involved in unsavory practices.
RHS
Their members, not its members.
So much as changed since Lawyers were first allowed to engage in more elaborate advertising.
I noticed the pitch about refusing a breath test. In my opinion that was a reckless statement. Arrestees might reflect back on this ad and believe their best option is to refuse to blow. First time offenders might otherwise have the opportunity to engage in a deferred prosecution but if they refuse the breath test it can be both unsavory in the minds of prosecutors and not only that but a refusal can mean up to a year suspension of their driver license in many states, regardless of the disposition of the DWI. Perhaps this in of itself is unprofessional conduct.
If he was also so academically talented he would not need such ads to succeed one would hope.
But regardless it might be good that he has adverts such as this. He has pre-screened some possibly good clients that might have found out too late he is not a professional. That is probably a good public service.
The ad? Embarrassing. Obnoxious. Inappropriate. Bizarre.
No doubt about it.
I do, however, question JT’s suggestion that a group of lawyers “rank” others in the legal profession according to some arbitrary standard of good taste in advertising. Where does the consumer and the concept of “buyer beware” enter into the fray? Why assume that the general public is any less capable of judging the appropriateness or decency of these off-the-chain ads than some star chamber composed of fellow attorneys? Noblesse oblige–it’s alive and well. I say LET the public get a glimpse of the tactics employed by these renegade lawyers, and I say let those in the community decide for themselves whether this is the type of legal representation that they want. Obfuscating the true nature of these attorneys does no one any service. Let them reveal themselves for exactly who they are. Funny. The idea of having bar associations rank their members, according to the appropriateness of their advertising, doesn’t jive with the fact that the same organizations make it virtually impossible for the general public to obtain records and documents about the misdeeds and flagrant violations committed by its members. A call to censor these ads and rank bar members accordingly–all in the name of protecting the public? Fantastic. If there truly is a desire to somehow protect the public, what about total transparency with regard to bar complaints filed against its members, where one has the ability to gain access to that often damning info before hiring a lawyer? I’m not so worried about what CAN be viewed on late night TV–I would be more concerned with what is specifically hidden and concealed from an unwitting public when in pursuit of legal representation.
The crazy Eddie of lawyers. I wonder if his fees are insane too.
Did you know that in Oregon the bar permits lawyers to make false statements in legal filings, and then secretly plant false stories in the media to try their cases in the headlines? The Oregon bar also does not hold lawyers to honestly disclose their advertising.