Direct mail restrictions

December 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Have you ever been in an accident and then received mail from an attorney only days later? If you have, did you find the mailing helpful or annoying? That’s what the Indiana State Bar Association wants to find out from residents regarding direct mail from attorneys following accidents. The survey of residents will ask if lawyers should have to wait 30 days until directly contacting people by mail.

Bloomington attorney Ken Nunn doesn’t like this idea. In documents he recently sent to IL reporter Michael Hoskins, who wrote a story about the survey, Nunn notes he’s probably sent as much or more direct mail than any other attorney in Indiana. One of the documents Nunn sent us is a copy of an e-mail he sent to a listserv. The gist of it is that Nunn doesn’t support the idea of a cooling-off period and instituting the 30-day ban is a restriction on attorneys’ freedom of speech.

Nunn argues there’s nothing wrong with sending free information to people right after they’ve been involved in an accident because although it’s advertising, it provides information to the public. He says the information he sends to potential clients can help prevent people from getting the short end of the stick from an insurance company, information that people might not know unless they received his mailings.

I’ve been in a few auto accidents and haven’t received anything from attorneys in the mail, probably because they were minor accidents. My reaction to receiving a direct mailing would be to just throw it away.

Nunn does bring up some good points in his argument, but in today’s litigious society, I’d be willing to bet most people who are injured in an accident that isn’t their fault already think about contacting an attorney even if they don’t get direct mail from one. The benefit of direct mail is those people will have an attorney name and number right in front of them, making it more likely for some injured people to contact that attorney instead of searching for another to represent them. If someone wants to sue, they will regardless of when they receive a direct mailer or even if they don’t receive one at all.

Do you think a cooling-off period is a good idea or unnecessary? If you’ve received direct mail from an attorney after an accident, how soon did you get it?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT