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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT