Lawyer My response to the assignment given me in this article. therefore. does not oppose advertising by lawyers on legal grounds. The question is whether there is a higher good beyond legality which should be considered. It is true that it is permissible (0 advertise. but does that mean that the public is wellserved by the exercise of thaL freedom as we have observed it'? Is the trust lhat society needs to have in the legal profession as a calling of people dedicated to truth and justice likely to be damaged or advanced by the speckle of 13\\ yers writing solicitation letters to grief-stricken family members. or hawki ng our services through the use of overly-dramatic television re-enactments? Can we truly ignore this dimension to our profession in our discussion of advertising by attorneys, particularly in the face of public opinion polling which shows us that the public perception of lawyers is falling, coupled with survey data from a poll of lawyers which indicates that advertising has a negative effect on the image of the profession? Is this merely a private issue to be confronted by each lawyer individually, or does the legal profession owe itself, the public it serves. and the institution of justice to which it is called. some obligation beyond the quest for personal enrichment? I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions. and yet I raise them from the conviction that the legal profession will not answer them unless the) are confronted. Personal freedom to ad'"ertise notwithstanding. it is time that we consider what it means to be a profession. Unless we are to adopt the idea that consumerism is to define the ethical parameters of permissible conduct by lawyers. there must be some sense within our profession and each lawyer that we owe the public something more than the right to know that we are lawyers and where we can be found. We owe a duty 10 uphold the
CON
Advertising
pie and property are manipulated for gain, and not an effort, albeit imperfect, by which humans seek to justly resolve their differences and conduct their Lransactions. So rather than argue that lawyers should not advertise. or denounce the court decisions on lawyer advertising, we should be talking with one another about what it means to be a profession. If being a professional means being a person of trust concerning a discrete subject maner on which the general public lacks knowledge and is dependent. then we should be a~king ourselves whether the public is likely to trust a "profession"
whose members resort to commercial manipulation in order to foster demand for our services. Lf we are free to advertise. we are free to temper the way thm we advertise so that the confidence and trust that the public needs and upon which our justice system depends will not be undermined.
T
hose who support the de-regulation of lawyer advertising assert that the public needs to know its right to legal services. and where to find the people
"It is true that it is permissible to advertise, but does
that mean that the public is well-served by the exercise of that freedom as we have observed it?"
PubUc confidence and trust ill the imegrity of our legal system. If that sense of confidence and trust is lacking, the public will come to view law as a system by which peo-