Movement Grows to Rein In Lawyer Ads : Law: Critics say messages demean the profession and mislead the public. Bill would impose new ethical standards.

The ads beckon from the Yellow Pages, your mail and the living room TV, tantalizing the potential plaintiff in all of us.

“Injured? Larry Parker got me $2.1 million,” says the satisfied client of a widely advertised attorney. “Accidente? Call 1-800-7-DINERO,” suggests a Spanish-speaking lawyer. “We are TOUGH. We are FAST. We will FIGHT for your legal rights,” promises a firm specializing in motorcycle crashes.

In these litigation-minded times, a rising chorus of critics is complaining that too many lawyer ads are misleading or confusing. Amid calls for reform, nearly half the states are considering new rules for lawyer advertising or have imposed limits.

In California, legislation has been introduced by Assemblyman Paul Horcher (R-Diamond Bar) to add new restrictions--including a ban on statements or symbols suggesting that litigants will win immediate cash settlements. The State Bar has begun public hearings on whether tougher and more specific ethical rules governing advertising are needed for California’s 133,000 lawyers.

“Too many of the ads give the justice system a wrong image and a bad image,” said State Bar President Harvey I. Saferstein of Los Angeles. “It really is time to do something before we reach a situation where there is high distrust of the legal profession.”

In recent Bar hearings in Los Angeles and San Francisco, a number of lawyers defended their ads as providing valid and useful information to consumers and objected to further regulations.

“Most of the hue and cry is coming from competitors who don’t advertise,” said Merrill Haber of the firm Jacoby & Myers, whose television ads are seen widely. “Among these lawyers there seems to be a disrespect for the public--a feeling that (the public) can’t make discerning choices.”

Larry H. Parker of Long Beach, whose firm spent more than $1.5 million on TV commercials in 1991, defended the use of testimonials from clients who won lucrative settlements. “Through testimonials, you get to see real people,” Parker said.

Historically, advertising by lawyers was tightly controlled by law and ethics codes claiming to protect consumers and maintain public trust in the law profession. Critics asserted that the limits violated free speech rights and effectively curtailed competition to the public detriment.

Then came a 1977 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the first in a series recognizing lawyers’ rights to free commercial speech and expanding their right to advertise. Although false or misleading ads can be barred, the advertising of routine legal services must be permitted, the court held in an Arizona case.

Since then, lawyer advertising has increased dramatically. According to the Television Bureau of Advertising, the legal industry spent more than $102 million on TV ads in 1991, or nearly 20 times the amount spent in 1980. Now, attorney ads fill 93 Yellow Pages in the San Francisco telephone book and 75 in its Los Angeles counterpart.

Although no statistics are available, authorities believe that similar growth has occurred in direct mail advertising by attorneys to people facing bankruptcy, foreclosure, drunk-driving charges and other legal problems.

UC Berkeley law professor Robert H. Cole warned that moves to place new restrictions on advertising must persuade courts that have become increasingly protective of free speech rights. Upholding good taste is not a sufficient basis for restrictions on ads, he said.

“Part of the duty of the Bar is serving basic public needs--and one of them is free speech,” Cole said. “Taste, dignity and style are not the (province) of the government and cannot be regulated.”

Lawrence W. Crispo of Los Angeles, chairman of the State Bar task force on advertising, concedes that there are legitimate free speech concerns--but contends that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of many ads.

“They tend to demean the legal profession . . . and can take advantage of unsuspecting members of the public,” Crispo said.

The new, less regulated era for lawyer advertising has produced a broad range of commercials. Some have won awards from the American Bar Assn., including a TV ad by a small Texas firm aimed at encouraging people to show up for jury duty.

The film shows an empty, cobwebbed courtroom as a series of voices recite excuses for not serving--such as business engagements, hair dressing appointments and the like. The ad closes with a narrator citing the public duty of jury service.

Other ads have drawn hoots of derision. An oft-noted classic of the genre is a since-abandoned commercial by a Wisconsin lawyer who donned striped prison garb, sat in a make-believe electric chair and lamented his failure to call the lawyer’s legal clinic for help.

Efforts to restrict ads are generally focusing on setting guidelines for determining what are false, misleading or deceptive ads, said William E. Hornsby, staff counsel for the American Bar Assn. Commission on Advertising.

Many reformers want dramatizations clearly labeled as such to reduce consumer confusion. Also drawing close scrutiny are ads that promise “no recovery, no fee”--an implication that if clients do not win a settlement or court award, they will not have to pay their lawyer. In fact, Hornsby said, such lawyers may charge clients for costs--the expenses of bringing the case, not including the lawyer’s fee.

“For many clients the difference between fees and costs is not clear and an ad that doesn’t make that distinction can be a clear example of false and misleading advertising,” Hornsby said.

Perhaps the most sweeping attempt to control lawyer advertising has been made in Florida, where new rules bar attorneys from soliciting accident victims by mail within 30 days of the incident, prohibit lawyers from citing their won-loss record and forbid lawyers from creating “unjustified expectations.” The ban on contacting accident victims was recently held invalid by a federal district judge.

In California, the Horcher bill would enact a comprehensive regulatory plan to thwart false and misleading lawyer advertising. The bill, among other things, would bar any guarantee of the outcome of a lawsuit, suggestions of immediate cash settlements, or unlabeled testimonials or dramatizations. It would also disallow sending advertising to accident victims or relatives within 30 days of the incident.

Horcher, Saferstein and other authorities have called for greater disclosure in lawyer advertising--particular in ads targeting the Spanish-speaking and other minority communities.

Raul R. Granados of Montebello, a former president of the Mexican-American Bar Assn. of Los Angeles, said some lawyer referral services give the false impression that they are law firms or government agencies. Other ads feature dollar signs or other misleading suggestions of quick, sure and lucrative victory in court--when reality may be quite the contrary.

“They shouldn’t go around inviting litigation,” Granados said. “Some of these ads imply promises to people and give the impression they can win a case . . . just like they can win the lottery.”