Bringing new meaning to sleazy
This advertising campaign is, well, bad. Very, very bad.
There is a certain irony, though, you know.
The defense representation being offered here is in fact completely legitimate — n0t only to sleazeballs, slime and creeps, who are constitutionally entitled to their defense (just not by me), but to people involved in all sorts of disputes (but typically divorces) who are wrongfully accused of being sleazeballs, slime and creeps.
But the choices made in these ads completely undermines that bona fide prospective, mainly because in the graphic, hyper-realistic and borderline pornographic pictures, the crimes being referred to are really happening.
Guess what, law firm? People who have been wrongfully accused of these acts, or who desperately want the world (including the justice system) to believe the accusation is wrong, want to be represented by the lawyers who only have innocent clients.
And from these ads, that does not seem to be you. Get it?
Turn in your wingtips. Please.
Cross posted on my pretty good blog, Likelihood of Success. I also have a heavy-hitting law blog called LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION:® but considering this post I’m kind of embarrassed about the whole concept. (It’ll pass.)
At the top of Drudge right now is a story called: “White Student Beaten On School Bus; Crowd Cheers. The
It hurts my heart a little to admit that $292 million doesn’t sound like a whole lot right off hand.
That scumbag, Roman Polanski, who has been given a free pass for decades after raping a 13 year-old-girl, may now