Lawyer spam

April 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
I recently experienced a first when it comes to my personal e-mail account: I received spam e-mail from an attorney.

An e-mail from California attorney Roni Deutch, whose name I recognize from TV commercials, made it into my junk e-mail box Monday afternoon. I’m not sure if my e-mail has been sold to an advertising company or if this attorney thinks e-mail is the way to reach out to potential clients.

One thing that’s actually good about receiving this type of solicitation in an e-mail format instead of seeing it on TV is that I can read the fine print. Instead of scrolling by so quickly on the screen and being barely legible, I can see that Deutch may not be my attorney, there’s no representation as to the quality of her services to be better than those of other attorneys, and I should independently investigate her credentials and not rely on her ad.

Unfortunately for Ms. Deutch (and fortunate for me), I do not owe any money to the IRS, so I won’t be needing her services.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Attorneys actually invented internet spam back in the 90\'s. The first ever internet spam was mass usenet postings by an immigration attorney. Here\'s a recent Wired blog post on the subject:
    http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/04/0412canter-siegel-usenet-spam/

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT