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 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?

  • 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

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
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?