<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let Your Fingers Walk for Me</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/</link>
	<description>breathless punditry and one-breath poetry with David Giacalone</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:58:52 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: miglena</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-4331</link>
		<dc:creator>miglena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/#comment-4331</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

good page http://www.g888.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>good page <a href="http://www.g888.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.g888.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: miglena</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-6251</link>
		<dc:creator>miglena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/#comment-6251</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

good page http://www.g888.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>good page <a href="http://www.g888.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.g888.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Giacalone</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-4992</link>
		<dc:creator>David Giacalone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/#comment-4992</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Interesting point, Carolyn.  I have a few thoughts: 
(1) If that&#039;s your fear, why not say &quot;we tailor our fee to your case, with percentages from 15 to 33%&quot;?  One reason I ased about fullpage ads is that there&#039;s plenty of space to explain the details, if the lawyers wanted to, and there&#039;s already lots of tiny print in their footnotes.

(2) If the bar did claim your ad was deceptive, it would almost certainly do so to dampen price competition, not to assure truthful advertising.   I&#039;ve been told by discipline committee staffers that so many complaints by lawyers come from competitors trying to squelch competition, that they ignore virtually all lawyer-initiated complaints.  

(3) I&#039;ve been an advocate of lawyer advertising since my law school days.  My FTC antitrust experience taught me that bar associations said they opposed advertising to uphold the so-called &quot;dignity of the profession&quot; but they mostly opposed and feared competition.  Once the Supreme Court and the federal antitrust agencies said truthful lawyer ads could not be banned, the same bar associations became hyper-vigilant of any ads that did run for the same reasons.  Of course, to a consumer protection lawyer, the typical p/i fullpage ad is already plenty misleading, and those footnotes are just too small to past muster.

(4) Finally, in my opinion, most p/i firms do not advertise lower rates because they do not want to bring price competition into the market and do not want to anger their colleagues who like the good thing they have going -- there&#039;s too many rivals and too much fat in the Standard rate as applied to many clients to introduce fee competition.  That would mean fewer dollars overall for everybody -- and fewer chances of hitting the jackpot without any heavylifting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Interesting point, Carolyn.  I have a few thoughts:<br />
(1) If that&#8217;s your fear, why not say &#8220;we tailor our fee to your case, with percentages from 15 to 33%&#8221;?  One reason I ased about fullpage ads is that there&#8217;s plenty of space to explain the details, if the lawyers wanted to, and there&#8217;s already lots of tiny print in their footnotes.</p>
<p>(2) If the bar did claim your ad was deceptive, it would almost certainly do so to dampen price competition, not to assure truthful advertising.   I&#8217;ve been told by discipline committee staffers that so many complaints by lawyers come from competitors trying to squelch competition, that they ignore virtually all lawyer-initiated complaints.  </p>
<p>(3) I&#8217;ve been an advocate of lawyer advertising since my law school days.  My FTC antitrust experience taught me that bar associations said they opposed advertising to uphold the so-called &#8220;dignity of the profession&#8221; but they mostly opposed and feared competition.  Once the Supreme Court and the federal antitrust agencies said truthful lawyer ads could not be banned, the same bar associations became hyper-vigilant of any ads that did run for the same reasons.  Of course, to a consumer protection lawyer, the typical p/i fullpage ad is already plenty misleading, and those footnotes are just too small to past muster.</p>
<p>(4) Finally, in my opinion, most p/i firms do not advertise lower rates because they do not want to bring price competition into the market and do not want to anger their colleagues who like the good thing they have going &#8212; there&#8217;s too many rivals and too much fat in the Standard rate as applied to many clients to introduce fee competition.  That would mean fewer dollars overall for everybody &#8212; and fewer chances of hitting the jackpot without any heavylifting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Giacalone</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-6912</link>
		<dc:creator>David Giacalone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/#comment-6912</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Interesting point, Carolyn.  I have a few thoughts: 
(1) If that&#039;s your fear, why not say &quot;we tailor our fee to your case, with percentages from 15 to 33%&quot;?  One reason I ased about fullpage ads is that there&#039;s plenty of space to explain the details, if the lawyers wanted to, and there&#039;s already lots of tiny print in their footnotes.

(2) If the bar did claim your ad was deceptive, it would almost certainly do so to dampen price competition, not to assure truthful advertising.   I&#039;ve been told by discipline committee staffers that so many complaints by lawyers come from competitors trying to squelch competition, that they ignore virtually all lawyer-initiated complaints.  

(3) I&#039;ve been an advocate of lawyer advertising since my law school days.  My FTC antitrust experience taught me that bar associations said they opposed advertising to uphold the so-called &quot;dignity of the profession&quot; but they mostly opposed and feared competition.  Once the Supreme Court and the federal antitrust agencies said truthful lawyer ads could not be banned, the same bar associations became hyper-vigilant of any ads that did run for the same reasons.  Of course, to a consumer protection lawyer, the typical p/i fullpage ad is already plenty misleading, and those footnotes are just too small to past muster.

(4) Finally, in my opinion, most p/i firms do not advertise lower rates because they do not want to bring price competition into the market and do not want to anger their colleagues who like the good thing they have going -- there&#039;s too many rivals and too much fat in the Standard rate as applied to many clients to introduce fee competition.  That would mean fewer dollars overall for everybody -- and fewer chances of hitting the jackpot without any heavylifting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Interesting point, Carolyn.  I have a few thoughts:<br />
(1) If that&#8217;s your fear, why not say &#8220;we tailor our fee to your case, with percentages from 15 to 33%&#8221;?  One reason I ased about fullpage ads is that there&#8217;s plenty of space to explain the details, if the lawyers wanted to, and there&#8217;s already lots of tiny print in their footnotes.</p>
<p>(2) If the bar did claim your ad was deceptive, it would almost certainly do so to dampen price competition, not to assure truthful advertising.   I&#8217;ve been told by discipline committee staffers that so many complaints by lawyers come from competitors trying to squelch competition, that they ignore virtually all lawyer-initiated complaints.  </p>
<p>(3) I&#8217;ve been an advocate of lawyer advertising since my law school days.  My FTC antitrust experience taught me that bar associations said they opposed advertising to uphold the so-called &#8220;dignity of the profession&#8221; but they mostly opposed and feared competition.  Once the Supreme Court and the federal antitrust agencies said truthful lawyer ads could not be banned, the same bar associations became hyper-vigilant of any ads that did run for the same reasons.  Of course, to a consumer protection lawyer, the typical p/i fullpage ad is already plenty misleading, and those footnotes are just too small to past muster.</p>
<p>(4) Finally, in my opinion, most p/i firms do not advertise lower rates because they do not want to bring price competition into the market and do not want to anger their colleagues who like the good thing they have going &#8212; there&#8217;s too many rivals and too much fat in the Standard rate as applied to many clients to introduce fee competition.  That would mean fewer dollars overall for everybody &#8212; and fewer chances of hitting the jackpot without any heavylifting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carolyn Elefant</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-4990</link>
		<dc:creator>Carolyn Elefant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2003 16:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/#comment-4990</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

I think that many lawyers do not post their rate in yellow pages ads because of fear of repercussions from the bar.  The bar associations are so anal about ensuring that ads are not deceptive that if I were to run an ad saying &quot;Ask About My 15 percent Contingency Program in PI cases,&quot; (which might only apply to certain simple cases which can be settled without going into suit - something which I would explain in my office), the Bar would probably claim that my ad was deceptive.  That is why I believe that lawyers don&#039;t advertise rates in ads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>I think that many lawyers do not post their rate in yellow pages ads because of fear of repercussions from the bar.  The bar associations are so anal about ensuring that ads are not deceptive that if I were to run an ad saying &#8220;Ask About My 15 percent Contingency Program in PI cases,&#8221; (which might only apply to certain simple cases which can be settled without going into suit &#8211; something which I would explain in my office), the Bar would probably claim that my ad was deceptive.  That is why I believe that lawyers don&#8217;t advertise rates in ads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carolyn Elefant</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/comment-page-1/#comment-6910</link>
		<dc:creator>Carolyn Elefant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2003 16:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2003/06/06/let-your-fingers-walk-for-me/#comment-6910</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

I think that many lawyers do not post their rate in yellow pages ads because of fear of repercussions from the bar.  The bar associations are so anal about ensuring that ads are not deceptive that if I were to run an ad saying &quot;Ask About My 15 percent Contingency Program in PI cases,&quot; (which might only apply to certain simple cases which can be settled without going into suit - something which I would explain in my office), the Bar would probably claim that my ad was deceptive.  That is why I believe that lawyers don&#039;t advertise rates in ads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>I think that many lawyers do not post their rate in yellow pages ads because of fear of repercussions from the bar.  The bar associations are so anal about ensuring that ads are not deceptive that if I were to run an ad saying &#8220;Ask About My 15 percent Contingency Program in PI cases,&#8221; (which might only apply to certain simple cases which can be settled without going into suit &#8211; something which I would explain in my office), the Bar would probably claim that my ad was deceptive.  That is why I believe that lawyers don&#8217;t advertise rates in ads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
