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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT