Catchy legal advertising

March 23, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When it comes to catchy law firms with catchy slogans, this one may have a winning hand.

I recently was in Savannah, Ga., and came upon this law firm in the city.Casino Law Group I assumed the firm deals with gambling-related issues, perhaps because of all of the casino references. A quick Internet search revealed the firm actually is a personal injury firm, and two of the people at the firm have the last name of Casino. To capitalize even more on the casino idea, its website is luckylegal.com. Way to play up the gambling theme.

The sign got me thinking about law firm advertising. I noticed on our drive to Georgia and back numerous billboards advertising for attorneys or legal services. I think my favorite one was near the Indiana/Kentucky border. It had a fake car that looked like it had crashed through the billboard. It even had headlights that worked. That made it stick out in my mind more than just your typical lawyer’s face on a billboard (although the car billboard may have also had the lawyer’s face on it. It was too dark to snap a picture).

Then there’s the commercial by a Kentucky law firm that claims to be the first one in 3-D. Catchy idea, and an even better one if you own a pair of 3-D glasses.

What’s the most interesting law firm ad you’ve ever seen?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Law Firm Slogan
    Harrison & Moberly's slogan is:

    "Taking Care of Business"
  • Best (worst?). Ad. Ever.
    There was a billboard in Chicago that caused a lot of controversy a few years ago. One side of the billboard featured the chest area of an attractive man wearing only silk boxer shorts. The other side of the billboard showed the chest area of an attractive woman wearing only a lacey bra.

    In between it said "Life is too short. Get a divorce." And had the firm name underneath the picture.

    I think it was a day, maybe two before the city made them take it down. However, they got a lot of media attention over it for the next several weeks, so clearly it did what the firm wanted it to do...Gave them great publicity.

    I thought it was sleazy but very effective.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT