Thanks for writing at length, Ima.  You are quite correct that anti-advertising rules are largely based in the fear of competition.  That’s why the FTC and Justice Dept. antitrust staffers went after overly broad bar association rules in the ’70s and ’80s.  We won the battle then (the ABA surely got the message in its Rule 7), but the counter-revolt is gaining strength.  Unfortunately, the tort reform message has somehow also increased calls to restrict lawyer advertising.

There is a reason why the legal establishment hates advertising: It hurts the status quo.

Think back to the old days when attorneys were completely forbidden from advertising. You’re a new attorney in town. Exactly how do you get new business? You can’t troll for business, i.e., walk around hospitals looking for clients. That’s illegal. You couldn’t advertise. Basically, you were screwed as the old fogies got all the business.

Things haven’t changed much. Large firms with lots of money would LOVE to put a stop to these little attorneys “stealing” their potential clients. Plus there’d be the added benefit as they’d no longer have to advertise to compete with those little guys.

I agree totally the merely relying on advertising is a bad way to make a decision. But that’s true of ANY product or service. Does anyone really think you should drink Coke because it “adds life”?!

If soda bottlers have a right to advertise their nonsense, I don’t see any GOOD reason the legal profession shouldn’t have the same right.