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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT