Lawyers - now in 3D

December 13, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

I guess giant checks, sad looking children, and car crash photos aren’t enough to grab viewers’ attention anymore when it comes to legal ads. A lot of the lawyers who advertise on TV practice similar law, and honestly, the ads do start to seem alike. To stand out in the crowd, a Kentucky attorney has decided to create a 3D ad.

Yes, that’s right, the law is coming to you in 3D now.

Eric C. Conn in Stanville, Ky., has produced what he claims is the first 3D lawyer commercial. You can watch the 60-second commercial on YouTube.  You see an animated version of Conn jumping off a billboard right at you, and then you learn more, in 3D of course, about Conn and how he’s Kentucky’s only board certified Social Security disability specialist. The text literally jumps out of the TV right at you. That is, if you have 3D glasses.

I don’t know of anyone who has on hand a pair of 3D glasses. But don’t fear, as the commercial instructs you how to make your own pair of glasses. If only I had the materials here at work, because without the glasses, the commercial just looks like a blurry lawyer ad.

In a very saturated market, Conn did come up with a novel way to stand out in the crowd. Whether people choose him as their lawyer because of the ad remains to be seen. It will get people talking, and maybe when they need an attorney his name will come to mind because it came at viewers’ heads in 3D.

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. 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