08 Jul 2014 at 1:45 PM

Law Schools, Lawyer Advertising

This Law School Is Looking For The Dumbest Possible Students

By Joe Patrice

When law schools face double-digit declines in admissions, it’s time for a slick ad campaign to bring in more students. When traditionally lower-ranked law schools face double-digit declines in admissions, it’s time for a slick ad campaign to bring in low-hanging mouthbreathers to subsidize the rest of the school.
Such is the case for one school that plastered a new series of posters around town hoping to draw in new students to fill their ranks.
A new ad that requires the prospective student to suffer a severe lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking….

Suffolk Law is on a bad run. Admissions are down, and admission standards are falling. The school is even turning on its own faculty, instituting “post-tenure review” — the latest in “let’s blame professors for costing too much before someone notices the administration budget.” This is all to say that they want warm bodies fast.
Enter their new ad.

As our tipster put it: “Sure, the President, six of nine Supreme Court Justices, and the Governor may all have attended Harvard. But Suffolk Law has Worcester Probate Court on lock, bitches.”
OK, in fairness the ad is factually accurate, which is certainly an improvement in a world where law schools are not above playing games with their employment statistics by hiring grads to work for the school and pretending that “J.D. Advantage” jobs are all six-figure banking gigs.
But in another, more accurate way, screw you Suffolk. The Boston Red Sox have more World Series championships than the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Montreal Canadiens combined. No disrespect to the Massachusetts judicial system, but Harvard and Yale may not be competing with Suffolk over that plum.
Frankly, this ad should replace the entire logical reasoning section of the LSAT:

Based on this passage, which is the best law school to attend:
(a) Harvard
(b) Yale
(c) Columbia
(d) Suffolk
(e) Insufficient information, but defensive enough that you know it’s definitely not (d)

The whole campaign hinges on prospective students lacking the ability to see through this farce, which requires a particularly dense prospect. But do such prospects even exist? We make fun of lower-tier law schools a lot, but is anyone interested in law school really unable to see through this? I guess maybe the woman going to NYU’s TriBeCa campus.
Apologists will suggest that “maybe some students really want a school to provide regional opportunities,” which would be a fair statement if (a) you thought Harvard grads couldn’t get Massachusetts state judgeships; (b) Suffolk was significantly cheaper than Harvard; (c) you were tripping on glue when you said that.
The people we should feel sorry for are the current Suffolk students who face enough challenges with a 35.7 percent employment score without watching their school’s already battered reputation take another hit.
Another year of plummeting LSAT medians — already down to 149 — and we’ll also be able to say Suffolk has more McDonald’s employees than Harvard, Yale, and Columbia combined.
Waning ranks at law schools [Boston Globe]
Suffolk professors worry new policies erode protection for tenured faculty [Boston Globe]

Editor's note: This Shark believes when referring to the inhabitants of the Probate Court of Cook County this play on words would be most appropriate, "Greatest Lawyer Ad Ever: ‘Trust me, I May Have A Law Degree, But I Am A Criminal!’"

06 Mar 2014 at 2:12 PM

Advertising, Crime, Lawyer Advertising, Reality TV

Greatest Lawyer Ad Ever: ‘Trust me, I May Have A Law Degree, But I Think Like A Criminal!’

By Joe Patrice

Just a day after genius legal impresario and sledgehammer enthusiast Jamie Casino reportedly landed a new reality show called Casino’s Law, a new lawyer has entered the hallowed halls of epic advertising.
The quote in the title is not paraphrasing. It is absolutely a line from the three minutes and 27 seconds of awesomeness that is this ad.
Check it out in all its glory….

This morning I saw a retweet from Spencer Hall of EDSBS:

Alright, I was intrigued. Then I watched it and my life was altered. Without further ado, meet Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney Daniel Muessig.

I’m on record defending lawyers who think outside the box with their commercials. But the roll call of criminals returning to a life of crime thanks to the intrepid Mr. Muessig is far afield of anything I could have imagined in my wildest dreams.
And probably far afield of what legal ethicists would have imagined a lawyer advertising in their wildest dreams.
UPDATE: It turns out this isn’t Daniel Muessig’s first foray into the pages of ATL. Under the name Dos-Noun, he wrote a rap while a student at Pitt Law.
Report: Georgia Lawyer Jamie Casino Is Getting A Reality Show [Deadspin]
Earlier: Jamie Casino’s Two-Minute Super Bowl Law Thingy
Hilarious Commercial Alert: Attorney Smashes Insurance Companies — With A Hammer!

02 Dec 2013 at 2:39 PM

Advertising, Asians, Lawyer Advertising, Minority Issues, Racism, Videos, YouTube

The Racist Law Firm Ad Update — The Maligned Law Firm Speaks

By Joe Patrice

Over the holiday weekend, there’s been a lot of activity surrounding the racist law firm advertisement we wrote about on Wednesday. First, the firm’s Facebook page declared that the firm was the victim of hacking and that they absolutely did not sanction the ad for their firm posted on YouTube.
Then the head of the production company who posted the ad — and who employs the stereotypical character in multiple ads — wrote a missive swearing that it was hired by the firm and that they provided the script. The production company is also butthurt that Above the Law labeled the ad racist, even though the YouTube post openly trolls viewers to lighten up about its content. I wonder why they’d expect people to be up in arms over their content. Certainly not because they expect people to think it’s racist.
Now the law firm has sent us a direct statement, and this whole tale is super crazy…

When we first saw this story, covered by Angry Asian Man and FindLaw, we had no reason not to take the disclaimer on the Definitive Television YouTube channel at anything but face value. They’d had the video up for almost a month and swore that the firm commissioned them to make the ad. While the character was not the firm’s, the production company said the firm signed off on the script.
Now we have reason to doubt this tale. In response to a query from Above the Law, McCutcheon & Hamner issued this statement:

For the past two weeks, we have worked diligently to determine the source of this video. Within hours of first being notified of the commercials existence, we traced the producer to Definitive Television and its owner Jim DeBerry. We insisted that the video be removed and that he disclose the party that allowed my partner and I to be portrayed in such a negative and misleading light. After a personal review of our financial records which conclusively established that this video was not paid for or authorized by any party associated with our law firm, McCutcheon & Hamner, P.C. posted our response specifically disavowing the video as well as issuing a cease and desist letter to Mr. DeBerry and Definitive Television. Of course, Mr. DeBerry has refused and we are currently investigating our legal options. At this time, we have been instructed by our legal counsel to refrain from comment.
Due to your stereotypical response concerning the State of Alabama, however, I felt compelled to respond. It is obvious that no matter my firms lack of involvement and repeated denials relating to this video, that people are quick to judge based upon their initial observations regardless of whether they know Tom and I personally. You don’t know me. You don’t know my family or my friends. You have never contacted me or spoken with me. You know nothing of my life and yet you stereotype me as promoting racism based upon this video. The State of Alabama has had it’s share of race problems, that cannot be denied. This State has addressed those problems and continues to do so. Quite frankly, if the video had portrayed a “southern redneck” I doubt you or anyone else would have even cared. But racism for people like you is ok, as long it is not directed at you. Quite frankly, maybe you should look in the mirror and not be so quick to judge those you don’t know.
Sincerely,
Joel R. Hamner, Esquire
McCutcheon & Hamner, PC

This is all still being sorted out, but if this is true, I feel sincerely bad for the firm. Getting tagged with this kind of negative imagery through no fault of their own would be horrible. If the firm’s story is true, at least this whole affair brought the offending video to light instead of letting it fester for weeks or months longer. Both through updates to the original post and this follow-up, we’ve been quick to bring to the public the denials of McCutcheon & Hamner and to give a complete view of the unfolding story.
And while I personally feel for the firm if this is true, a couple lines deserve note. First, regarding the statement that “racism for people like you is ok, as long [as] it is not directed at you” — in fairness, I don’t think the “southern redneck” stereotype is actually “racist.” It may be prejudicial, but it doesn’t carry with it the same debilitating consequences as race-based stereotypes. But for the record, no, racism is not OK when not directed at me. (Actually, as a white heterosexual male, discrimination is pretty much never directed at me, but I still think it’s bad.)
Second, it’s good to hear that Alabama is taking steps to address its historical and persistent race relations problems. It’s not too long ago we were reading about voter suppression laws there, so something still needs to be done, no matter what Chief Justice Roberts says.
Hopefully the state will continue to address it as vigilantly as it addresses holes in FG return coverage.