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'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT