1976, July, Pg. 950. From Our Readers.

5 Colo.Law. 950

Colorado Lawyer

1976.

1976, July, Pg. 950.

From Our Readers

950Vol. 5, No. 7, Pg. 950From Our ReadersDear Editor:Allow me to second the arguments raised by Jon Kidneigh in the May, 1976 issue of The Colorado Lawyer, and to suggest that the issues may be framed in somewhat different terms---which nevertheless lead to the same result.

Current debate within the profession has tended to revolve around a question which, to begin with, is overly general in form and misleading in its premise: should advertising by lawyers be permitted?

The premise is misleading because it ignores the fact that the present system officially permits advertising, provided its profile is low. Small, dignified shingles, unobstrusive telephone directory listings, business cards, notices in office building lobbies, etc. all constitute advertising in the sense that information, rather than mercenary claims, is conveyed. The question debated should accordingly be: what additional forms of public information should be permitted beyond those now accepted? The answer to that question does not depend on the media sought to be used, the size of printed ads, or the number of spot commercials. Rather, it depends on the purpose of the advertising, a quality which should be discernible in whatever concrete form the advertising may take. (To paraphrase Mr. Justice Stewart, we may not be able to define advertising, but we know it when we see it.)

Put briefly, advertising intended for the information and the benefit of the public is not only unobjectionable, but badly needed. Advertising for the purpose of enrichment or self-aggrandizement of lawyers is neither, and should continue to be subject to the strictest controls and discipline.

Opposition to the latter statement will be rarely encountered in or out of the profession. What is difficult for many younger lawyers to understand, however (at least without questioning the motives of the opponents), is opposition to the former statement. It would seem that such opposition would have to be based on beliefs that:

1. the present system offers adequate opportunity for anyone who might have a legal problem to recognize its existence and to obtain meaningful information as to the availability and cost of competent assistance; or

2. if the present system is defective, allowing lawyers to advertise...