Comments on: Brand LEX http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/ breathless punditry and one-breath poetry with David Giacalone Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:58:52 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Solteros http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-191819 Solteros Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:00:22 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-191819 Good post on brand creation! Congratulations! Good post on brand creation! Congratulations!

]]> By: Montreal Hotels http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-4826 Montreal Hotels Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:27:16 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-4826 <a></a> Oklahoma City Hotels

Oklahoma City Hotels

]]> By: Montreal Hotels http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-6746 Montreal Hotels Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:27:16 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-6746 <a></a> Oklahoma City Hotels

Oklahoma City Hotels

]]> By: Medicine Hat http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-4515 Medicine Hat Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:22:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-4515 <a></a> Red Hat Society

Red Hat Society

]]> By: Medicine Hat http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-6435 Medicine Hat Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:22:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-6435 <a></a> Red Hat Society

Red Hat Society

]]> By: Dog Skating http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-4392 Dog Skating Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:19:53 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-4392 <a></a> Dog Skating

Dog Skating

]]> By: Dog Skating http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-6312 Dog Skating Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:19:53 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-6312 <a></a> Dog Skating

Dog Skating

]]> By: Milen http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-4362 Milen Fri, 02 Sep 2005 05:04:03 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-4362 <a></a> Very nice blog.

Very nice blog.

]]> By: Milen http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-6282 Milen Fri, 02 Sep 2005 05:04:03 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-6282 <a></a> Very nice blog.

Very nice blog.

]]> By: fsedfewfwe http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-4565 fsedfewfwe Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:57:17 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-4565 <a></a>  

 

]]> By: fsedfewfwe http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-6485 fsedfewfwe Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:57:17 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-6485 <a></a>  

 

]]> By: David Giacalone http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-5281 David Giacalone Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:35:54 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-5281 <a></a> Matt, please see my post on March 17, <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/#a1046">here</a> for my apology and apologia. If you disagree with any of my concerns (e.g., that branding is meant to allow premium pricing; that much of the behavior done in the name of branding has little to do with the core attorney-client relationship or the provision of legal services), please leave Comments here or at your website.

Matt, please see my post on March 17, here for my apology and apologia.

If you disagree with any of my concerns (e.g., that branding is meant to allow premium pricing; that much of the behavior done in the name of branding has little to do with the core attorney-client relationship or the provision of legal services), please leave Comments here or at your website.

]]> By: David Giacalone http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-7201 David Giacalone Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:35:54 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-7201 <a></a> Matt, please see my post on March 17, <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/#a1046">here</a> for my apology and apologia. If you disagree with any of my concerns (e.g., that branding is meant to allow premium pricing; that much of the behavior done in the name of branding has little to do with the core attorney-client relationship or the provision of legal services), please leave Comments here or at your website.

Matt, please see my post on March 17, here for my apology and apologia.

If you disagree with any of my concerns (e.g., that branding is meant to allow premium pricing; that much of the behavior done in the name of branding has little to do with the core attorney-client relationship or the provision of legal services), please leave Comments here or at your website.

]]> By: Matthew Homann http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-5278 Matthew Homann Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:59:01 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-5278 <a></a> Cheap shot, David. Get to know me better before calling my ethics into question.

Cheap shot, David. Get to know me better before calling my ethics into question.

]]> By: Matthew Homann http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-7198 Matthew Homann Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:59:01 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-7198 <a></a> Cheap shot, David. Get to know me better before calling my ethics into question.

Cheap shot, David. Get to know me better before calling my ethics into question.

]]> By: Dave http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/04/brand-lex/comment-page-1/#comment-5266 Dave Sat, 06 Mar 2004 16:04:11 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/03/04/brand-lex/#comment-5266 <a></a> David, my feeling is that your focus on branding is too superficial. Branding alone will not make a successful practice--you still have to be able to back up your claims by results. These results may be timely response to client inquiries; maintaining credibility with other attorneys; or even plain old legal skill. The fact is that in the crowded legal market, you can't just hang out a shingle and wait for clients to beat down your door. Additionally, lawyers are bound by ethical rules restricting the content of their communications and other advertising. Here in Missouri (under Rule 4-7.1), a lawyer cannot make a fale or misleading communication, including a communication that: (a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law; (b) omits a fact as a result of which the statement considered as a whole is materially misleading; (c) 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 the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (d) compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated; (e) contains a representation of, or implication of, fact regarding the quality of legal services which is not susceptible to reasonable verification by the public; (f) contains any statistical data or other information based on past performance which is not susceptible to reasonable verification by the public; (g) contains any paid testimonial about, or paid endorsement of, the lawyer, without identifying the fact that payment has been made or, if the testimonial or endorsement is not made by an actual client, without identifying that fact; (h) contains a simulated description of the lawyer, his partners or associates, his offices or facilities, or his services without identifying the fact that the description is a simulation; (i) contains any simulated representation or visualization of the lawyer, his partners or associates, his office or facilities, without identifying the fact that the representation or visualization is a simulation.

David, my feeling is that your focus on branding is too superficial. Branding alone will not make a successful practice–you still have to be able to back up your claims by results. These results may be timely response to client inquiries; maintaining credibility with other attorneys; or even plain old legal skill. The fact is that in the crowded legal market, you can’t just hang out a shingle and wait for clients to beat down your door.

Additionally, lawyers are bound by ethical rules restricting the content of their communications and other advertising. Here in Missouri (under Rule 4-7.1), a lawyer cannot make a fale or misleading communication, including a communication that:

(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law;
(b) omits a fact as a result of which the statement considered as a whole is materially misleading;
(c) 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 the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(d) compares the lawyer’s services with other lawyers’ services, unless the comparison can be factually substantiated;
(e) contains a representation of, or implication of, fact regarding the quality of legal services which is not susceptible to reasonable verification by the public;
(f) contains any statistical data or other information based on past performance which is not susceptible to reasonable verification by the public;
(g) contains any paid testimonial about, or paid endorsement of, the lawyer, without identifying the fact that payment has been made or, if the testimonial or endorsement is not made by an actual client, without identifying that fact;
(h) contains a simulated description of the lawyer, his partners or associates, his offices or facilities, or his services without identifying the fact that the description is a simulation;
(i) contains any simulated representation or visualization of the lawyer, his partners or associates, his office or facilities, without identifying the fact that the representation or visualization is a simulation.

]]>