This piece addresses the use of unusual or sensational imagery in legal advertising and its potential impact on professional respectability, following a widely publicized example involving a prominent law firm.
The Spectacle of Legal Marketing
Recently, a law firm’s advertising campaign garnered national attention, including a feature on Stephen Colbert’s ThreatDown, for its incorporation of a bear holding a small child. The imagery, while arguably designed to suggest a firm’s balanced approach—perhaps a combination of aggressive advocacy and protective care—sparked commentary across the legal community.
The reaction to this unconventional advertisement was swift, highlighted by a comment from a Wall Street Journal law blog reader: “As long as Bingham is allowed to advertise with a bear holding a baby, personal-injury lawyers should be able to do whatever they want.” This critique suggests that the use of such a theatrical image by a major firm effectively lowers the bar for all legal advertising, normalizing increasingly sensational marketing tactics.
Beyond the Bear: A Trend Toward Spectacle
While the bear advertisement stands out for its novelty, it is fundamentally similar to other high-concept or gimmicky campaigns prevalent in legal marketing. For instance, campaigns have featured attorneys morphing into wild animals, such as a tiger, or images of lawyers demonstrating superhuman strength, such as lifting an automobile. It is worth noting that some of these high-impact ads are syndicated and reused by numerous attorneys across the country, suggesting a perceived effectiveness in leveraging spectacle for visibility.
These examples raise a central question regarding the intersection of novelty and professionalism in legal advertising. While the goal of any advertisement is to capture attention and convey a message, legal professionals are traditionally held to a high standard of respectability.
The Necessity of Professional Standards
The core issue remains whether the pursuit of attention through sensational, non-traditional advertising risks undermining the public’s perception of the legal profession’s seriousness and integrity.
In the case of the highly debated bear advertisement, a related question arises regarding compliance with standard professional advertising practices. One might reasonably wonder if the firm included the typical disclaimers required in legal advertising, such as clarifying that the image does not represent an actual client. More humorously, but pertinent to the image’s professionalism, one might also speculate whether the firm thought to include a disclaimer stating that “the bear is not a member of the bar.”
The ongoing debate underscores the challenge for law firms in balancing the commercial necessity of memorable marketing with the imperative of maintaining the dignity and respectability expected of legal professionals.
