1976, May, Pg. 617. Advertising: The Hypocritic Oath.

• Author: by Jon Kidneigh

5 Colo.Law. 617

Colorado Lawyer

1976.

1976, May, Pg. 617.

Advertising: The Hypocritic Oath

617Vol. 5, No. 5, Pg. 617Advertising: The Hypocritic Oathby Jon KidneighEthical Canon 2 gloriously promotes the ethical virtues of attorneys by proclaiming the profession's duty to make legal counsel available to all. The new lawyer is charged with the moral responsibility of assisting all persons to recognize, understand and handle their legal problems. He is bound by an oath to make it possible for anyone to obtain the services of acceptable legal counsel.

DR 2-102(A)(6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility makes a mockery of Canon 2 by prohibiting that same lawyer from making available to the public the only two pieces of information the consumer wants: 1) Does the attorney do the kind of work that the consumer wants done? and 2) How much will the job cost?

Now, you say, "It's not that simple; the law is a very esoteric thing." Perhaps it is, but if so, I'm sure that fact escapes us on an almost daily basis. "Esoteric"

618has been defined as: "Adapted exclusively for the initiated and enlightened few."

How clever of the "enlightened" profession to adopt a "code of honor" ordering themselves not to disclose any information about their abilities or prices to the general public. "The initiated and enlightened few" in the case of "advertising by lawyers" would appear to be the policy-making house of delegates in the ABA who in the face of Consumer's Union v. ABA voted 158 to 108 to allow limited advertising by lawyers in Bar Association sanctioned directories and phone book yellow pages, but not in consumer publications.

The problem facing the ABA and the profession today is that many lawyers and most consumers are just beginning to recognize the fact that the ABA dogma does not happen to be the law of the land.

If you can set aside your indoctrinated notions about the "magic of the legal profession" for one moment and just look at the basic situation from the consumer's standpoint, you will realize immediately that to restrict advertising by lawyers other than to regulate and prevent false or misleading advertising is clearly a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act as an "unreasonable restraint of trade" and is a blatant violation of the First Amendment rights of consumers who want to know, and attorneys who want to tell, about qualifications and prices. I suspect that many attorneys' attitudes toward advertising are molded by their current positions within the legal community, and, accordingly, I'm not going to argue the law and have you debate me in your minds on the law and...