What's up with all the ads for law firms?

Key takeaways

Lawyers were historically prohibited from advertising, leading to challenges for new firms in attracting clients.
John Bates and Van Osteen's decision to advertise despite risks led to a landmark Supreme Court case.
The Supreme Court ruling established that advertising is protected under the First Amendment, changing legal marketing forever.
The precedent set by this case has influenced advertising laws across various industries, increasing consumer access to information.

Summary

The Evolution of Lawyer Advertisements

The podcast opens with amusing examples of lawyer advertisements, highlighting how creative and outlandish they have become, contrasting sharply with the restrained advertising practices of the past. Historically, from the 20th century until about the 1970s, lawyers were essentially prohibited from advertising by state bar associations, which viewed such promotions as unprofessional or unethical. This ban created significant barriers for new law firms trying to reach potential clients.

The Pioneers of Legal Advertising

The episode recounts the story of John Bates and Van Osteen, who founded a low-cost legal clinic in Arizona and faced difficulties due to the advertising ban. In a bold move, they placed an ad in the newspaper, prompting disciplinary action from the Arizona bar. Their determination led to a crucial legal battle that challenged the constitutionality of advertising restrictions, setting the stage for a fundamental shift in legal marketing.

The Supreme Court Battle

The narrative follows Bates and Osteen as they escalate their case to the Supreme Court. Here, they invoke the First Amendment rights, arguing not just for their own rights to advertise, but highlighting consumers' rights to access information about legal services. The pivotal moment is when the court recognizes commercial speech as protected, thereby allowing lawyers to advertise their services. This landmark ruling changed the landscape of how legal services could be marketed.

The Broader Implications of Advertising Rights

The episode concludes by examining the broader implications of this legal precedent. The decision opened the floodgates for not only lawyers to advertise freely but also for a range of products and services. The once-popular notion that commercial speech was inferior in importance to political speech was discarded, leading to increased competition and accessibility in the legal profession. The discussion ends on the irony that such advertising has now led to a more diverse array of legal service options for the public.

Show notes

The lawyer commercial is almost an art form unto itself. Learned practitioners of the law doing whatever it takes to get your attention, from impressive dirt bike stunts to running around half naked. All so when you land in trouble, you don't have to think hard to remember their name. Odds are you can name one or two right now.

This world of law ads did not exist fifty years ago. Then, lawyers were not allowed to advertise. Not by law, by the exclusive organization that decides who gets to be a lawyer: state bars.

On today's episode, how that changed. How a couple of lawyers placing an ad in a local newspaper led to the inescapable world of law firm ads we know today. And, how the right to advertise got put on the same level as some of the most important, fundamental rights we have.

This episode was hosted by Nick Fountain and Jeff Guo. It was produced by Sam Yellowhorse Kesler with help from Sean Saldana. It was edited by Jess Jiang. It was fact-checked by Sierra Juarez and engineered by Valentina Rodríguez Sánchez. Alex Goldmark is Planet Money's executive producer.

Help support Planet Money and hear our bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.

See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.

NPR Privacy Policy