Dscriber.com reports that storm chaser and reality-TV wife swapper Richard Heene has hired Denver attorney David Lane (Colorado Super Lawyers 2006-09). Lane gained national attention when he represented embattled former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill.
Attorney Nick Hentoff's recent blog posting starts out by applauding Super Lawyers for sticking up for lawyers' First Amendment rights (Thank you, Nick).
But then he raises the question of whether our website, superlawyers.com, is "Super Misleading" for allegedly misusing the the term "specializes" in reference to attorney practice areas. He doesn't say where exactly where the offending term resides on our site, but instead, cites a passing reference in a North Dakota Ethics Opinion from April 10, 2008 which alleged that our "website states that a search will help in finding a 'Super Lawyer' that specializes in a specific area of law," (State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Opinion No. 08-02, page 7).
This statement by the Ethics Committee I found baffling. First, we do not allow, or use the term "Super Lawyer" as alleged by the Committee (the usage is improper on two counts: it is used as a moniker or label, and it is used in the singular. Super Lawyers is a registered mark that is always used by us in the plural form).
Second, we also do not allow our staff to use the term "specializes" unless, of course, the lawyer has in fact been certified as a specialist by an authorized state or federal authority.
I searched and searched and could find no such usage of the term "specializes" on our site. On the contrary, the only reference I could find is in disclaimer language we include at the bottom of every page which says our listings do not certify or designate an attorney as a specialist.
So what was the Committee looking at? Despite our best efforts to police the use of the dreaded "specializes" word, maybe it slipped through the cracks somewhere.
So I put our webmaster on the task to find the offending term. Turns out it was mistakenly included in language written into a meta-tag (for the uniformed like me, meta-tags are the descriptions written by website designers to describe the content of the various pages on a website). The only place one would ever see the term is not on our website, but in the short descriptions accompanying certain search results on Google, Yahoo and others search engines.
We have purged the term "specializes" from the meta-tag and have replaced it with the word, "practices." Let the world sleep easier tonight.
An item in today's New Jersey Law Journal daily news alert is potentially misleading and needs clarification. The Journal reports:
COURT LIKELY TO EASE, NOT LIFT, ITS BAN ON COMPARATIVE LAWYER ADVERTISING
New Jersey's Supreme Court seems poised to alter its current outright prohibition on advertising in which lawyers compare their abilities to others, probably by requiring that such ads include caveats to potential clients. The Court wants to create a "sensibly balanced rule," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said Wednesday at a hearing on whether lawyer should be able, within limits, to tout their ratings in publications like Super Lawyers Best Lawyers. But it was clear from the tenor of the arguments and the justices' occasional remarks that comparative advertisements will likely have to be accompanied by some form of disclaimer that "super lawyer" or "best lawyer" designations do not have the Court's blessing.
Reading this, one might infer that lawyers are currently banned from advertising in, or mentioning selection to Super Lawyers (or Best Lawyers) in their advertising because of the comparative advertising rule. That is not the case. Over the past four years, hundreds of New Jersey lawyers have advertised in New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine, or have mentioned the Super Lawyers honor in their advertising or promotional materials. Not a single one of them has been disciplined, or threatened with discipline for doing so. The same can be said of the thousands of lawyers nationwide who advertise or mention their selection to Super Lawyers.
Super Lawyers has been around since 1991. In those 18 years, no court or discipline authority has ever prohibited lawyers from advertising in or about Super Lawyers.
So, New Jersey lawyers and reporters, please note: There is no ban on Super Lawyers or Best Lawyers advertising. Never has been and, as long as the First Amendment is around, there never will be.
The only thing the New Jersey Supreme Court has banned is the clumsy and misguided disaster known as Opinion 39 which itself sought to impose such a ban at the expense of free speech. Click here to read the court's opinion and here to read the report of Judge Fall upon which the court based its ruling.
In the current issue of Texas Super Lawyers, Frank Branson, a perennial top 10 lawyer on our lists, reveals that being fired from Steak & Ale was the biggest boost to his legal career. Read the complete story of this plaintiff powerhouse.
Racehorse Haynes has no plans to slow down. A member of the Texas Bar since 1956, the 82 year-old legend dispenses some sage advice in the just released 2009 Texas Super Lawyers magazine: The one book every lawyer should read and then re-read every year; how he got his nickname; how he stumbled upon his first courtroom win -- it's all here.
When in her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court Sonia Sotamayor discussed the influence of Perry Mason on her career, it got us thinking, what do the lawyers named to Super Lawyers think of the TV lawyer icon? Turns out they think a lot. Here are just a handful of the many comments about the TV lawyer that have made it into the pages of Super Lawyers.
Deryck Palmer of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft:
“If I had to trace the origins [of my fascination] with law, it goes back to when I was a young child. You may laugh, but I watched Perry Mason and I was very impressed. Raymond Burr did an excellent job of capturing the impact lawyers can have.”
(From “The Eagle Scout,” published in New York Super Lawyers 2008 — September 2008)
Thomas Salerno of Squire Sanders:
“[I wanted to become a lawyer] from watching trial shows on TV such as Perry Mason. I come from a working-class background, and the idea of wearing a suit to work intrigued me. I was also intrigued by the power that lawyers seem to have in their spheres.”
(From “Q&A with Tom Salerno,” published in Southwest Super Lawyers 2009 — May 2009)
Michele Coleman Mayes, General Counsel of Allstate:
“I think I can attribute [my interest in law] to Perry Mason. It was on TV at the time and he always won.”
(From “In Good Hands,” published in Super Lawyers -- Corporate Counsel Edition - May 2009 — May 2009)
W. Henry Jernigan of Dinsmore & Shohl:
“The one I saw the most growing up was Perry Mason. Looking back, I always find, with great amusement, that Perry never had to look at a law book and always had someone stand up and plead guilty in the back of the courtroom. I’m still waiting for that to happen.”
(From “Q&A with W. Henry Jernigan,” published in Virginia Super Lawyers 2009 — July 2009)
Robert Dawson of DawsonBrown:
“I really think it was mainly TV [that influenced him to become a lawyer.]. In those days it was the show Perry Mason. Didn’t you love how you always knew who was guilty: It was the person who got on the stand the last five minutes of the show. But think of that show: Every week, Hamilton Burger was trying an innocent person for murder, and nobody seemed to care.”
(From “Q&A with Robert K. Dawson,” published in Washington Super Lawyers 2009 — June 2009)
And finally,
Lonnie Williams:
“To this day I am an absolute fan of Perry Mason. And I still believe today that the legal profession would be much better off if we resorted back to trying cases the way Perry Mason did. Forget about the discovery; forget about spending all this time in pretrial. Let's just go out and learn the facts, put the witnesses on the stand and try cases. I love examining witnesses who have not been deposed. Most lawyers would think that's crazy but I think that is a much purer form of the art.”
(From “Q&A with Lonnie Williams, Quarles & Brady, Phoenix,” published in Southwest Super Lawyers 2008 — June 2008)
These headlines appeared on a single page (B5) today in our hometown newspaper, the Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune:
Trial Opens in New Year's killing
Dad charged with killing his son
Sexual assault after concert
Police seek clues in fatal shooting of 23-year-old
Sex assault suspect charged
Gang stabbing brings guilty plea
The advertising on the page: Three ads for funeral and cremation services.
.jpg)
Before becoming President Obama's Pay Czar and determining what CEOs should be paid, Kenneth Feinberg had to decide even more important matters. Our cover story from Washington DC Super Lawyers 2008, "What is a Life Worth?", focused on his role as head of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.
The gossipy, irreverent, and occasionally, newsbreaking blog Above the Law celebrates its third anniversary today. In looking over the debut post, Letter from the Editor, from three years ago, we have to say the blog has certainly remained true to its mission of having fun with the law. Happy anniversary to one of our favorite sites!
The University of Washington has the most graduates on this year's Washington Super Lawyers list (248 graduates, or 23 percent of the list). Check out our list of the ten law schools that produced the most graduates on the 2009 list.
The iphone now offers five apps for lawyers. Check them out here.
Great article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on Harry Sieben (Minnesota Super Lawyers 1991 to present), now stepping down as managing partner of Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum & Carey -- the "Know your rights" law firm.
Sieben, the former speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, built the firm into a personal injury powerhouse in part by being a pioneer in legal advertising.
"We weren't the first firm to do any advertising in Minnesota but we were the first firm to do any significant advertising," Sieben said. "The people we represent have claims -- against insurance companies, mostly -- and the insurance companies don't need advertising to tell them who the good lawyers are. Consumers typically only need a lawyer like us once in their lifetime. So marketing is one way to inform potential customers of our services."
Temple University Beasley School of Law has the most graduates on the 2009 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list (332 graduates, 15 percent of the list), followed by Villanova (294, 13 percent) and the University of Pennsylvania (250, 11 percent).
In addition to the graduates on the Pennsylvania list, Penn has 1273 graduates on 2009 Super Lawyers lists in other states. It's not surprising that many of Penn's graduates practice across the country since it is such a highly ranked national school (ranked number 8 in the nation by U.S. News & World Report).
Temple is ranked 65th in the nation and Villinova is ranked 61st by U.S. News. To see the top ten schools by graduates on the 2009 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list, click here.
Norm Pattis (Connecticut Super Lawyers 2006-09) represents Nancy Tyler, the lawyer who was held hostage by her ex-husband in a12 hour stand-off with police. Pattis and Tyler appeared on the Today Show this morning.
Pattis, a criminal defense lawyer whose passion for books drove him to purchase Whitlock Farm Booksellers in Bethany, Connecticut (the bookstore is housed in a converted turkey barn) was featured in 2007 Connecticut Super Lawyers magazine.
The University of Florida Levin College of Law had the most graduates on the 2009 Florida Super Lawyers listwith 762 of its graduates or 26 percent of the Super Lawyers roster for Florida. The University of Miami ranked second with 447 Super Lawyers graduates or 15 percent of the state’s total. The University of Florida is also the top Florida school in the U.S. News & World Report rankings coming in at number 51 in the nation. The University of Miami was ranked number 71 in the nation by US News.
The big surprise in theSuper Lawyers graduate count is Stetson University which ranked third with 244 Super Lawyers graduates or 8 percent of the list, beating out Florida State which came in fourth with 211 Super Lawyers graduates or 7 percent of the Florida roster. According to U.S. News, Florida State is ranked number 52 in the nation while Stetson is a third tier school and is not given a ranking (U.S. News ranks the Top 100 in the nation, and places the rest of the schools in tiers 3 and 4). I won't quibble with the U.S. News rankings except to suggest that in terms of producing quality lawyers, Florida now has four top tier schools.
Click here to see a complete list of schools with the most graduates on the 2009 Florida Super list
We know there’s a shortage of Michael Jackson in your news, so we thought we’d dust off a couple of Jacko-related items for you. These are exclusive feature profiles we ran of two of the key players in the the unfolding Jackson estate drama. John Branca, co-executor of Michael Jackson’s will, was profiled in the 2006 Southern California Super Lawyers. Jackson’s parents, Joseph and Katherine Jackson, are represented by L. Londell McMillan, profiled in the 2007 New York Super Lawyers magazine.
Alaska is the latest state to approve the use of one’s Super Lawyers selection in advertising.
State bar association Ethics Opinion 2009-2, states in part:
Lawyers and law firms may refer to a listing in Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, or another commercial professional ranking so long as the reference includes the publication name, date, and the practice area, if one was specified, in which the lawyer was ranked or selected.
I just got back from the LMA convention held this year in National Harbor, MD, just outside of DC. The featured speakers Thursday morning were the husband and wife team of James Carville and Mary Matalin. I jotted a few notes on what Carville said legal marketers and lawyers should keep in mind in their marketing communications:
According to Carville, the least effective and most overused form of persuasion is the litany of accomplishments. Forgo the litany, he advises, and instead, think in terms of sound bites.
“’Love thy neighbor as yourself.’ Now there’s a sound bite that worked” he says. “It sums up a whole religion.”
Not surprisingly, he also cited “It’s the economy, stupid,” as another example of a sound bite that worked, this simple phrase being the essence of an entire presidential campaign.
An effective marketing message needs to meet a four-prong test, he says: It must be relevant, simple, repetitive and exclusive. Exclusivity in this context means the message has to be your own – unique to you and your practice.
Lastly, to reinforce the message or sound bite, tell a great story that illustrates the point.
So once again, I’ll repeat his relevant, simple and exclusive sound bite: “Lose the litany.” And of course, don’t’ forget to “Love thy neighbor.”
New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine is out. You can read stories online at superlawyers.com.
Here’s a preview:
The cover story features labor and employment lawyer Angelo Genova who went from coffeehouse beatnik to Mr. Connected in New Jersey law and politics.
Other profile subjects include:
When you get a magazine in the mail, what’s the first thing you do?
If you’re like most people, you don’t immediately start to read the magazine. Instead, you probably flip through and look at the pages. And what’s the first thing on a page you look at? The photos.
Especially if the photos are of fellow human beings. And if we recognize someone, we slam on the brakes and dig into to find out why our next door neighbor, or college classmate, or fellow parishioner has her picture in a magazine. We can't help it. We're hardwired this way.
This simple, indelible truth is often overlooked by print advertisers. Too many print advertisers run cold, sterile “image ads” that have not a trace of humanity in them. No people, no photos, no story, no point of view.
In legal circles, large firms are notorious for creating people-less “image ads.” These ads are loaded with visual clichés associated with the law – Doric columns, courthouse steps, gavels, scales of justice, law books, or better yet, an open law book with a pair of reading glasses positioned just so upon the pages. But no actual lawyers.
Among more progressive large firms, a memo was apparently circulated at one time that if you want to shake up your ad, it’s okay to feature animals – lions, tigers, bears, and even elephants, are okay, but for god’s sake, keep the damn lawyers out of the ad!
The result. The completely forgettable ad. The airball of advertising. I’ll bet these image ads produce nothing but a deafening silence for a response.
If you’re a small or mid-size law firm that doesn’t have a big marketing department, or ad agency on retainer, and you want to get your money’s worth for your print ad, put your picture in the ad.
Why? Because anyone who knows you – colleagues, judges, opposing counsel, clients, past clients, potential clients – will stop and notice the ad. At that point you’ve already achieved what scores of print ads fail to accomplish – NOTICE and RECALL, the golden words of advertising.
It doesn’t matter that you’re not buff or beautiful. Remember: as a lawyer, you are the product. You are the brand. You need to get out there.
Your photo will reach out and grab the reader in way that words cannot. This is not a sophisticated concept. It’s not fancy. It’s not creative or award-winning. But it works!
In Super Lawyers, the impact of a photo goes a big step further: Notice and recall in the context of Super Lawyers equates to, “I noticed you were in Super Lawyers. You’re among the five percent they chose. That must mean you’re considered by others to be a pretty darn good lawyer.”
That’s a great message to get out there and it didn’t take a word of copy to communicate. In print advertising, the old saying is especially true: A picture – especially your picture -- is worth a thousand words.
The legal marketing world is all atwitter over online social networking (see for example, “Top Reasons For Using Twitter” by Larry Brauner, posted by the ubiquitous Larry Bodine on his LawMarketing Blog).
You better be Linkedin or you’ll be left out. Tweet or get beat. Why spend time taking clients to lunch when you can spend your noon hours blogging for dollars?
All this change is rather intimidating. Lawyers are busy enough practicing law and maintaining a semblance of family life. You got 73 emails in your in box and there’s a frantic client who’s already called you twice this morning. Who has time for online chat?
How do you build a client development strategy around all this change?
You don’t.
At least that what Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos says. The other night, on Charlie Rose, Bezos stressed that businesses need to focus on things that don’t change, i.e., the customer’s needs and wants. If you attempt to build strategy around things that change, he said, your strategy will keep shifting, and you won’t get anywhere.
A while back I consulted with a lawyer. I had one simple question pertaining to one sentence in a basic legal document. I had a five minute phone conversation with the lawyer that verified what I already knew. There were a couple of administrative email exchanges (acknowledging receipt of the document, promising to review and get back to me, etc.) which contained no legal analysis or other substantive work product. We never discussed rates or billing. A part of me thought she might not bill me at all for such a simple matter.
A month later I received a bill that took my breath away. A building contractor would not send this large of an invoice without first providing an estimate. An auto mechanic would not perform work for this much money without getting your permission.
To add insult to injury, there was no note or letter from the lawyer, just a bill with an obtuse and repetitive (not to mention questionable) block of text reciting the work performed, followed by a curt demand to pay the painful total.
Lawyers are expensive. I get it. But it wasn’t the cost so much as the treatment that bothered me – the presumptuous conceit that says you, Mr. Client, don’t need to understand what you’re buying. Just shut up and pay.
Like any other customer or client, I want to know up front what it is I’m buying, approximately what it will cost. I want to know that I was smart for hiring my lawyer. That it was a worthwhile expenditure and that I wasn’t taken advantage of. This is as true today as it was 50 years ago, and it will always be the case.
During the next year, how much focus, time and energy will we give to addressing the basic, immutable needs of our clients and customers? Or will we be too busy on Twitter?
When you receive your copy of Super Lawyers magazine, you may be moved to tell us a few things. Perhaps you think we left someone deserving off the list; or maybe you think we included someone who shouldn’t be on the list. In the past, you had to wait several months before you could nominate that overlooked attorney, and other than sending us an email or letter, there wasn’t an effective means of providing us feedback regarding the lawyers on the list.
Now all that has changed.
We’ve expanded the nomination period so that it opens about the same time you receive Super Lawyers magazine. With the magazine in your hand and the spirit moving you, you can immediately log on to my.superlawyers.com to nominate and voice your opinion while things are still fresh in your mind.
And the nomination process is no longer about simply providing us with a name. We’ve added two new features to the nomination page: The “Comment” feature allows you to tell us exactly why you believe the attorneys you nominate should be included. You can comment privately, or allow publication of your comments, with or without attribution.
The “Rate” feature allows you to rate each attorney on 12 criteria, things like, knowledge of the law, ethics, results, civility, and so on. Both the Comment and Rate features are optional. You can still nominate by simply providing the name of the lawyer.
What if there’s a lawyer on the list you don’t think should be there? At the top center of every page on my.superlawyers.com there’s a tab you can’t miss: It’s labeled “Comment on/Evaluate Lawyers.” Click on this and you’ll be given the same “comment” and “rate” options as on the nomination page. As always, we will treat these comments and ratings as confidential unless you direct otherwise.
Next time you receive Super Lawyers, we hope you’ll remember to take advantage of this opportunity to vent. In case you don’t, we’ll be running ads in the magazine reminding you to log on to my.superlawyers.com to comment, rate and nominate. Judging from the number of comments and ratings we’ve received so far, lawyers appreciate these new options. It all takes just a minute or two, and the feedback you provide is invaluable to us.
Jenny Durkan, perennial Washington Super Lawyers honoree and longtime counsel to Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, may be the next U.S. attorney for the Western part of the state. In a Feb. 12 letter to the White House, Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell recommended Durkan for the top federal prosecutor position in Seattle.
According to her profile on superlawyers.com, Ms. Durkan successfully represented the Democrats at trial in the Washington State Governor's election contest. She formerly served as Governor Lowry's Executive Counsel, chaired the Attorney General's Consumer Privacy Task Force, and has co-chaired U.S. District Judge selection committees.
When people ask where I went to law school, I like to say I went to the Harvard of St. Paul, Minnesota. That would be William Mitchell College of Law.
Never heard of it? This tells me you're not from Minnesota. You see, Billy Mitchell (as we affectionately call it) is very well respected in this state. It's produced a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (Warren Burger), scores of State Supreme Court justices and many of the top lawyers in Minnesota. While Billy Mitchell ain't Harvard, it's a darn good law school.
But you'd never know that if you relied on the US News & World Report rankings of law schools from 2008. We Mitchell grads took a collective shot in the, um, midsection when our school was listed dead last in the survey. (Okay, it wasn't quite that bad -- the magazine didn't bother to "rank" the loser schools listed in the 4th tier, so they just listed them alphabetically).
Two other law schools from the Twin Cities, Hamline and the University of St. Thomas, were listed in the third tier, while the University of Minnesota was ranked 22nd nationally.
I swear this is not sour grapes on my part here, but US News completely missed the mark on Mitchell. Consider the 2008 Minnesota Super Lawyers list. Thirty-four percent of the lawyers on the list graduated from the University of Minnesota; 26 percent from William Mitchell; 9 percent from Hamline and zero from St. Thomas (which is not surprising, since the school opened in 1999). How can it be that a lowly 4th tier school produces more than a quarter of the state's top lawyers?
Perhaps Mitchell suffers because it doesn't have a football team. It's an independent law school, not affiliated with a major university or college. Who knows? But one thing seems clear: US News uses a national ranking process. As such, they seem to do a good job ranking "national" law schools, but when it comes to local and regional schools, the process might not work so well.
The majority of students entering law school will not attend a nationally ranked school. For these students there needs to be a more reliable indicator of how local and regional schools rank compared to one another. That's where Super Lawyers comes in.
A reliable indicator of the quality of a law school is the quality of the attorneys it produces. In coming issues, Super Lawyers will publish graduation statistics on the lawyers named to our statewide lists. We believe this will give students a more accurate picture of how local law schools compare to one another, and will give a fairer shake to the Harvards of places like St. Paul, Minnesota.
In case you missed it, The American Lawyer ran a fascinating interview with Baltimore lawyer James Hanks Jr. (Maryland Super Lawyers 2009) describing what it was like aboard the US Airways flight that splash landed in the Hudson.
I appreciate the coverage that the NJBIZ gave our victory in the Opinion 39 case, Caped Crusaders of the Courts -- N.J. Judges lift ban on advertising 'Super Lawyer' (sic) status.
But in the middle of his piece, Scott Goldstein tosses this little hand grenade into the story.
"For some, it was unclear how lawyers were selected to be on these lists, and there was speculation that lawyers whose firms advertise in the publications are more likely to be included."
Who are these "some"? And upon what do they base their speculation? It's never made clear. It's just a faceless, baseless claim that floats alone in a sea of facts to the contrary.
The Special Master in this case reviewed thousands of documents, and listened to weeks of testimony about the selection processes employed by Super Lawyers and the other list publishers involved in this case. He concluded that there is no relation between advertising and selection to the list. The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the Special Master's 300 plus page report and agreed with his finding that there is no pay-to-play element. In the more than two years this case went on, the New Jersey Attorney General's office could not produce a shred of evidence to the contrary.
We had hoped this urban legend that lawyers can somehow buy their way onto our list had been put to rest once and for all with the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Who says Super Lawyers doesn't know how to pick 'em?
Two of the lawyers we chose to represent us in New Jersey to fight Opinion 39 -- Kevin McNulty, and Ben Wasserman -- have been named the New Jersey Law Journal's Lawyers of the Year for 2008. Also honored was Fred Dennehy, who represented Best Lawyers of America.
On December 17, the New Jersey Supreme Court vacated Opinion 39 which sought to prohibit lawyers' participation with Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers.
In recognizing the legal team's work in protecting lawyers' First Amendment rights to advertise, the Law Journal states:
“They championed the notion that the marketing of legal services has evolved and that consumers are not easily gulled.
“They argued New Jersey regulators out of taking a position at odds with lawyer advertising regimes in other jurisdictions.
“And they convinced a special master and the state Supreme Court that Opinion 39's blanket suppression of rating services with comparative words in their titles violated commercial free speech rights.”
Other lawyers playing key roles for Super Lawyers were Josh Rosenkranz of the New York office of Orick, and Minneapolis attorney Roy Ginsburg, who served as our local counsel.
Congratulations to our legal team on the well-deserved honor!
As you may have already heard, on Dec. 17th the New Jersey Supreme Court vacated Opinion 39, the 2006 ruling of the Committee on Attorney Advertising which sought to prohibit lawyers from advertising in Super Lawyers and participating in the Super Lawyers selection process. In overturning Opinion 39, the Court found shortcomings in the advertising rules themselves and referred the matter to three committees to review and modify RPC 7.1(a)(2) and (3) because of “constitutional concerns” and “in light of emerging trends in attorney advertising.” This is a ruling well worth a read.
The Court’s ruling is a significant victory for consumers looking for valuable information about lawyers, for attorneys wanting to exercise their right to commercial free speech and for the First Amendment and the press’ right to publish editorial opinion regarding lawyers.
We’ve made no secret of our belief that Opinion 39 was misguided in conception and poorly executed; as a result, we’re truly delighted that Court has vindicated our positions. Yesterday’s ruling confirms that lawyers have a constitutional right to truthfully advertise bona fide honor and awards and that publications such as Super Lawyers can – and should – be a much-needed resource to both consumers and attorneys.
Even a cursory read of the opinion makes it clear that the Court found the Special Master’s report, issued in July, to be very persuasive. In that report, Judge Fall lauded our selection process, stating,
“Suffice to say, the selection procedures employed by Key Professional Media, Inc. are very sophisticated, comprehensive and complex.”
He also noted that it is clear from the record that Super Lawyers “is a comprehensive, good-faith and detailed attempt to produce a list of lawyers that have attained high peer recognition, meet ethical standards, and have demonstrated some degree of achievement in their field.”
Similarly, Judge Fall noted with favor our system of checks and balances, our database and system safeguards and the various steps we take in assessing the qualifications and good standing of the lawyers on our list.
We’re also pleased that the Court explicitly cleared away any ambiguity regarding the appropriateness of participating in the Super Lawyers process and of promoting an attorney’s inclusion in our publication.
Going forward, we hope to be a resource to the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Attorney Advertising, the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics and the Professional Responsibility Rules Committee to which this issue has been remanded for reconsideration.
Throughout this two-year odyssey, we have been sustained and encouraged by the support we have received from the ranks of New Jersey attorneys and others. On both a personal and a professional level, I appreciate your notes and calls and thank you for each of them.
My best wishes to you for joyous holiday season and a prosperous new year.
In an Opinion posted just minutes ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court has vacated Opinion 39 which sought to ban advertising in or related to Super Lawyers. The court ruled that the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 7 (a)(2) and (a)(3) must go, stating:
"we acknowledge that Opinion 39’s shortcomings
are the inevitable result of the plain language of RPC 7.1(a)(3)
(prohibiting comparative advertising statements) and, to a
lesser extent, RPC 7.1(a)(2) (prohibiting advertising “likely to
create an unjustified expectation about results”). Indeed, we
are persuaded that the standards set forth in the RPCs require
review and, at least in respect of RPC 7.1(a)(3), modification
both because of the constitutional concerns identified in the
Report and in light of the emerging trends in attorney
advertising."
The court has referred the matter to three committees for consideration of a revised rule in light of the policy consideration in the Special Master's report and legitimate free speech concerns.
We are thrilled that Opinion 39 has been completely rejected, and feel vindicated in our assertions that lawyers have a constitutional right to truthfully advertise bona fide honor and awards, and that publications such as Super Lawyers provide much needed information to both consumers and attorneys who are beginning the search for legal counsel, or want to validate a referral.
She's always been an overachiever. At the University of Cincinnati, she played four years of varsity tennis and served as student body president -- the youngest ever elected and only the second female. Today, Janine Dascenzo is associate general counsel of GE. Her profile appears in the current issue of Super Lawyers -- Corporate Counsel Edition and is available online at superlawyers.com.
Read our profile of general counsel Lon Jacobs who helped News Corporation take over the Wall Street Journal and MySpace. The profile appears in the December issue of Super Lawyers -- Corporate Counsel Edition.
The research staff here at Law & Politics reviews thousands upon thousands of online bios as part of the Super Lawyers selection process.
Our researchers will tell you: if you’re looking for laughs, you're not going to find them in law firm website bios. There are, however, rare (I mean really rare) exceptions. One that was brought to my attention by our director of research is the biography of Martin D. Ginsburg (DC Super Lawyers ’07, ’08) who serves Of Counsel with Fried Frank.
If you read his bio, you’ll see that he has a mighty impressive resume. But what’s really impressive is how he manages to make it all funny. And this, from a tax lawyer! A couple of examples:
“Professor Ginsburg attended Cornell University, stood very low in his class and played on the golf team.”
“he was a member of the ABA Tax Section Council, where he performed no useful service at all; celebrating that achievement, in 2006 the Tax Section gave Professor Ginsburg its lifetime Distinguished Service Award.”
Kudos to the marketing department at Fried Frank for not putting the kibosh on this, and to Professor Ginsburg for demonstrating that lawyers need not take themselves too seriously.
If there's such a thing as a celebrity football referee, it's Ed Hochuli. He's worked two Super Bowls, 15 playoff games, and has earned the nickname "Guns" for his formidable biceps. And lately, he's come under fire for a controversial call in the closing minutes of the Denver - San Diego contest which ultimately cost the Chargers the game.
What most people don't know about Hochuli is that he is a named partner at one of the largest litigation firms in Arizona. Besides working 30 to 40 hours a week as a referee, he works a 50 hour week as a lawyer, heading up 25 to 50 cases on top of another 200 cases he's involved with. He arrives at the office at 5 am, finds time to pump iron a couple hours most days, and has raised six children.
Read the story we did on the amazing Hochuli from our 2007 Southwest Super Lawyers magazine.
One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons shows a business executive slamming his desk and saying, “What? A billion is a thousand million? Why wasn’t I informed of this!!?”
I think about that cartoon as I contemplate the numbers of the past week. First, there is the $700 billion bailout package. Just as I’m wrapping my brain around all those zeroes, we learn that on Monday, the market went down by a trillion dollars.
A trillion dollars. That’s a thousand billion. It’s like a million millionaires losing everything in a single trading day.
With losses like these, it’s not surprising to see the actions taken by two firms to respond to the financial crisis. On Wednesday, Susman Godfrey announced the creation of its “Financial Fraud Task Force,” moving their most experienced partners from across the country and relocating them temporarily to the firm’s New York office.
That same day Minneapolis-based Dorsey & Whitney announced the formation of its “Financial Crisis Working Group,” bringing together the firm’s resources from offices in the U.S., Europe and Asia to help businesses deal with the crisis.
I love these terms. It’s no longer a “practice group.” That term is too staid -- too plodding for these rapidly changing times. “Task Force” and “Working Group” imply immediate action, a work-through-the-night rapid response. They conjure up images of legal special ops forces.
It will be interesting to see how other firms follow. But they better hurry. The best names are going fast.
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s new rules governing lawyer advertising impose an unconstitutional restriction on free speech according to a complaint filed by Public Citizen and two Louisiana attorneys in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The new advertising rules, set to go into effect Dec. 1, would be among the most restrictive in the nation. They would bar a wide range of advertising practices such as the use of testimonials, actors, reenactments, and the utilization of nicknames, monikers, mottos, or trade names that state or imply an ability to obtain results in a matter.
In addition to the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, also named as defendants are Billy R. Pesnell in his capacity as Chair of the Board and Charles B. Plattsmier, as Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Board’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The newly released New York Super Lawyers -- Metro Edition features a cover story on one of the most celebrated trial lawyers of his generation. David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, talks about his childhood, his dyslexia, the most important characteristics a good lawyer needs, some of his more famous victories (U.S. v. Microsoft, Westmoreland v. CBS), and his most infamous defeat (Bush v. Gore).
For Boies, losing Bush v. Gore was not just a legal defeat.
"I lost the whole fucking country," he says with a grimace.
You can read the entire Boies profile on superlawyers.com along with stories about other top New York lawyers, including: Deryck Palmer; partners in law and life Thomas Moore and Judith Livingston; Roger Zissu; Harriet Cohen; civil rights attorneys Michael Ratner, Arthur Eisenberg and Manuel Vargas; and a Q&A with Arnold Jacobs.
On Monday September 15, Super Lawyers filed its "Comments on Report of Special Master" brief with the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Report of the Special Master was filed on June 30, 2008.
Briefs were also filed by Woodward-White, publisher of Best Lawyers in America, Martindale-Hubbell and New Jersey Monthly. The publishers are all intervenors in In Re Opinion 39 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising. The case arose out of the July 24, 2006, issuance of Opinion 39 by the New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising. Opinion 39 concluded that it was impermissible for attorneys to communicate their selection by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers or even to participate in their surveys.
In its brief, Super Lawyers argues, among other things, that the lawyer ratings it publishes provide valuable information to consumers, and are not misleading under the New Jersey Ethics Rules.
“A lawyer’s truthful statement that he or she has been selected by an independent publication, such as Super Lawyers magazine, is not the equivalent of a prohibited 'comparison' and does not raise 'unjustified expectations' in violation of the ethical rules, RPC 7.1(a)(3) and RPC 7.1 (a) (2). And if the regulations were interpreted to prohibit such advertisements, they would run afoul of well-established First Amendment case law.”
The Wall Street Journal and InformationWeek reported earlier this week that litigator Sandy Litvack has been hired by the Justice Department in anticipation of an antitrust showdown with Google over its advertising deal with Yahoo!.
InformationWeek noted that Litvack had been named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list from 2005 through 2008. Sandy Litvack's profile is posted on superlawyers.com.
Retired New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Robert Fall has released his long-awaited report on Opinion 39, the 2006 ruling by the Committee on Attorney Advertising that prohibited attorney participation in listings such as Super Lawyers. Judge Fall's report, produced at the request of the New Jersey Supreme Court and fifteen months in the making, contains much that was worth waiting for:
Judge Fall did an excellent job of distilling eight days of testimony and 1,800 pages of documents. The result is a 304-page report that provides a thorough and comprehensive history of attorney advertising, a survey of current practices in various jurisdictions and a detailed discussion of the application of New Jersey's rules of professional conduct to surveys and other marketing practices. The report, like the hearings Judge Fall conducted in preparation for this report, is a powerful example of the jurist's fair and meticulous approach to the issue.
The complete report is well worth reading, but for those interested in the executive summary, Judge Fall found much to praise about the Super Lawyer process, noting for example that our selection procedures are "very sophisticated, comprehensive and complex." Similarly, Judge Fall notes with favor our system of checks and balances, our database and system safeguards and the various steps we take in assessing the qualifications and good standing of the lawyers on our list.
By contrast, there's little praise for Opinion 39 or its underlying theories. To the contrary, Judge Fall devotes more than 100 pages of his report to a discussion of Supreme Court decisions regarding the constitutional right of lawyers to advertise, and the responsibility imposed on states in regulating free speech.
Overall, the report is an eloquent reminder that Opinion 39 is a constitutional outlier and is completely out of step with the rest of the country. With the full weight of Judge Fall's report to inform it, we are confident that the New Jersey Supreme Court will protect both its lawyers' right to commercial free speech, and our right as independent journalists to non-commercial free speech. The Court has yet to indicate when it will take up the matter, but thanks to Judge Fall, the ground has certainly been well-prepared for that possibility.
- Bill
At our request, Stephen Gillers, professor at the New York University School of Law, and a nationally-renowned expert in the regulation of lawyers and professional responsibility, provided his opinion on use of the Super Lawyers designation by attorneys licensed in New York. In part, his opinion reads:
"You have asked me whether in my opinion New York lawyers listed in Super Lawyers may advertise or publicize that fact consistent with the provisions of the New York Code of Professional Responsibility (as recently amended) that address professional advertising. My answer is that they may."
Professor Gillers cautions that attorneys should not be misleading -- that they should "make it clear that the lawyer is included or listed in Super Lawyers, not that the lawyer is presenting himself or herself as a super lawyer." He also suggests that advertisements not in the Super Lawyers publication refer to the Super Lawyers website to provide consumers a link to the selection process.
Click here to download the full text of Prof. Gillers' Opinion.
Enter keywords:
