New York Personal Injury Law Blog: FindLaw Uses Dead Child To Advertise Attorney Services

Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY  

Friday, January 22, 2010

 

FindLaw Uses Dead Child To Advertise Attorney Services


Demonstrating that, perhaps, there is no sewer deep enough for it to descend into, FindLaw has used the death of a child to promote the services of the lawyers that pay them fees.

On its Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog (coded as "nofollow" so that site doesn't get Google juice) FindLaw's writer, Emily Grube, re-hashes the tragic accident of a nine-year old that was hit by a car while playing with its scooter. After the re-hash comes this deep-thinking analysis:
There are many difficult questions about this case: Was the driver aware that she hit White? Was she aware that he was under the car? Did she continue to drive in an attempt to flee the scene?
Truly profound. I know I feel more educated having read it. At the end of it comes the call-to-action: "If you have been involved in a similar situation such as a hit and run, or a pedestrian injury, you could discuss your possible personal injury case with..." blah, blah blah

The "blog" is one of the dreck-blogs that I wrote about previously (Are FindLaw's "Blogs" Tainting Its Clients, Commentators and the Profession of Law?), that offer little content beyond repeating a local story, making damn sure the name of the victim is repeated in the event the victims (or their survivors) Google the event, and ends with a call-to-action. There is, of course, no comment area since discussion isn't the point of the ad.

(If the name of the writer sound familiar, Ms. Grube also writes dreck-blogs for other FindLaw sites, having apparently left what little dignity she may have been born with in the dust.)

In my prior posting, FindLaw was using dead adults in its pseudo-blogs, which appear as little more than ads designed to chase clients. The extent to which such ad-blogs violate local ethics laws has yet to be explored by any ethics committee that I know of, though surely that day is coming soon.

So who sponsors this kind of crap? When you click their link, these are the firms I found at the top of the link, that would benefit from FindLaw's use of dead children in its ads:

The Law Offices of Eric Strand
West Chester, PA

Law Offices of Basil D. Beck, III
Norristown, PA

Law Offices of V. Erik Petersen
Harleysville, PA

Hark and Hark
Philadelphia, PA

Law Office of Henry S. Hilles, III
Norristown, PA

So long as lawyers continue to pay money to FindLaw for its services, this will no doubt continue. (See, FindLaw, How To Leave and Save Your Reputation.)

And the continued existence of such crap will continue to hurt the legal community and our clients, and make it even more difficult to find objective jurors.

Lastly, it's worth noting that Mark Bennett had previously published a partial list of New York attorneys that were supporting this kind of conduct (Call This Notice). Yet FindLaw continues, and subjects more of their clients to being associated with its ugliness. So it appears that FindLaw doesn't really care about the reputations of the very people that hire them. Considering that FindLaw is the agent of these firms, that's important.

The only way for FindLaw's clients to preserve their reputations appears to be to ship out, because it doesn't appear that FindLaw will shape up.

Labels: ,


Comments:
Very interesting post but I have a somewhat different take on this issue which I discuss here:

http://rlwilsonconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/did-findlaw-cross-the-line-with-blog-post/

Randy Wilson
 
Randy:

I think it's abundantly clear that these are simply ads that are dressed up like blogs. This is clear not only because of the vacuous content, but the unnecessary use of the victim's name, and the putridly overloaded SEO writing that takes place.

For example, this is the "About" section...go ahead, count the keywords:

The Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog covers news and developments in the area of personal injury and tort law in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and connects people with Philadelphia personal injury attorneys. The Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog is intended to serve as a resource for people working through a personal injury or tort law issue in Philadelphia, or those who are interested in Philadelphia personal injury or tort law generally, including Philadelphia personal injury attorneys who are looking for a general personal injury news source.

Face it, the victim is being used for ad copy. How do you think the parents will feel? How will a juror feel about the lawyers if s/he Google this accident sometime in the future? The fact that they are not supposed to do that type of thing doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

FindLaw's conduct is indefensible. The lawyers that pay FindLaw are benefiting from it. It's is scuzzy, immoral and probably unethical.

This brings the legal profession down yet another notch, as others will see what FindLaw is doing and repeat it, under the theory that if it is good enough for FindLaw it is good enough for them.
 
While I don't condone the exploitation, there are so many equally sleazy http://rlwilsonconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/did-findlaw-cross-the-line-with-blog-post/
print and TV PI lawyer ads that are legitimate, but pass ethical muster. The bigger problem that I have with this Findlaw matter is that it seems to be an "end run" around advertising rules. The so-called blogs that you've discussed are clearly ads under NY rules. Yet there's no disclaimer on the blogs. A lawyer who wanted to run that kind of blog would run afoul of ethics rules without a disclaimer - yet the Findlaw blogs don't have one (at least not one that I could readily find). My greatest concern with online ads is that non-lawyers will set up sites that advertise in a way that lawyers could not, then sell links to lawyers (as Findlaw has here). At least, with the Total Attorneys "referral site", the site specifies that it is paid lawyer advertising. Why isn't this site also paid advertising? That to me is the bigger problem Because even if the blog were covering less serious injuries than a child's death, that doesn't absolve it of the bigger problem of being in violation of ethics rules.

With respect to the participating lawyers, I really don't think that they "get it." And though I don't absolve them of responsibility, at the same time, Findlaw (like Total Attorneys) is a big ABA and state bar sponsor and a proven name. It's not entirely unreasonable for lawyers, particularly those who are not web savvy, to rely on representations from these companies in embarking on ad campaigns.
I think that rather than going after the individual attorneys, perhaps the better approach is for lawyers to approach the ABA and our state bars and demand that they stop accepting sponsorship money from companies that violate ethics rules. To me, the bars' complacency in all of this is the real story here - not a handful of unsophisticated lawyers who are sadly lured into this mess because they are too desperate or unfamiliar with the Internet and blogging to know that what they are doing is wrong.
 
Carolyn:

I think you are dead on the money with respect to the bar associations. I've already contacted two.

I welcome everyone to contact their local associations with requests to steer clear of FindLaw, and if they already have an agreement with the company, to let it come to a swift end.

The bar associations should not be cooperating with a company that is acting so destructively toward its members.
 
Thanks for leading the charge on the bars. I'll do my share when I get back from travel, with a blog post too.
 
Hi Eric,

No question that blog is looking to drive traffic to its site by using lots of optimized keyword in their "about" section.

The question is does the blog post you referenced contain useful information? I think it does and you don't. If you want throw around words like "indefensible, scuzzy, immoral, unethical" that's your privilege but you're basing it on the fact that the blog posted about a tragic circumstance in the context of legal representation. Would the post have been okay without the link to the attorney directory? If the comments hadn't been "vacuous"?

Or is your objection to this blog altogether because its really solicitation? I'm not clear on your standard here except moral outrage but still somethng that needs legal definition and context.

And as to the Findlaw boycott, I hope you are cancelling your Westlaw subscription!

Regards,

Randy
 
The question is does the blog post you referenced contain useful information?

Many ads have "useful information." That does not mean it is OK to engage in exploitation or solicitation. It's pretty clear to me that any "information" that they offer is merely pretext for the link to their customers.

So the lawyers are now linked with this exploitation. And I think if they want to save their names they ought to tell FindLaw to take hike.
 
It's all SEO as you mentioned Eric. I would be willing to bet good money that not one board member over at FindLaw has any clue as to what their SEO company is publishing on their behalf. Board members only want results, not details on how those results are achieved (in regards to increased traffic, sales, clients, etc. online).
 
Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

 


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.

 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?