If you’re a bankruptcy lawyer marketing your practice online, you know about TotalAttorneys. You also know about the disciplinary issues surrounding the company.
I’m not commenting on the merits of the case either way, but wanted to pass along the attached brief filed by the Connecticut Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office.
I encourage everyone except the parties to comment on this issue. To prevent this site being embroiled in the controversy at any level, I will delete comments posted by any lawyer or entity involved in this controversy in any state. I hope you understand, but I’m not interested in having to deal with a subpoena or being made witness to these actions.
I practice in Connecticut. I am not connected in any way to any of the parties (well… unless belonging to NACBA is a connection) Read the conclusion of the Brief… our Chief Disciplinary Counsel urges the Grievance Committee to present these lawyers to the Superior Court for discipline not just for participating in an "unauthorized referral service", but for "felonious conduct"… i.e. violation of C.G.S. 51-87 — the "Runner" statute, which prohibits a lawyer from giving anything of value to anyone for referring a client or case.The CDC distinguishes AdWords and other "pay-per-click" from "pay-per-lead" … "pay-per-click" may be o.k.But what is truly scary (other than that "felonious conduct" charge) is that the CDC reads TotalBankruptcy.com as bad for precisely the reasons that marketers (and lawyers marketing) might like it:1. It has a lot of very useful information for Debtors . (CDC says it appears independent and authoritative and thus implicitly is recommending the lawyers receiving contacts as competent or special)2. It "appears" to "evaluate" a debtor's case (i.e. asks Debtor to fill out information, which is transmitted along with contact to lawyer) in referring to a local lawyer for an evaluation ("case evaluation form") but he sees the only relevant info as being the zip code, which automatically determines that inquiry be referred to a single lawyer who has paid for that zipcode;3. It grants territorial "exclusivity" to a single lawyer or law firm for each territory (in this case, zip code), and;4. The lawyer pays for each filled out evaluation form that is forwarded to that lawyer, which the CDC sees as a "referral", even if that contact does not retain in the Debtor retaining the lawyer. Of course, the quality and class of the websites, the "territorial exclusivity" and the "targeted" results, which month by month give you precisely measurable results, are exactly the factors which the CDC focuses on… he appears to believe that the commercial success of these techniques actually enhances their danger to the consumer and makes the participation more clearly unethical. For all users of modern internet marketing, well worth the read and very frightening…
I practice in Connecticut. I am not connected in any way to any of the parties (well… unless belonging to NACBA is a connection)
Read the conclusion of the Brief… our Chief Disciplinary Counsel urges the Grievance Committee to present these lawyers to the Superior Court for discipline not just for participating in an “unauthorized referral service”, but for “felonious conduct”… i.e. violation of C.G.S. 51-87 — the “Runner” statute, which prohibits a lawyer from giving anything of value to anyone for referring a client or case.
The CDC distinguishes AdWords and other “pay-per-click” from “pay-per-lead” … “pay-per-click” may be o.k.
But what is truly scary (other than that “felonious conduct” charge) is that the CDC reads TotalBankruptcy.com as bad for precisely the reasons that marketers (and lawyers marketing) might like it:
1. It has a lot of very useful information for Debtors . (CDC says it appears independent and authoritative and thus implicitly is recommending the lawyers receiving contacts as competent or special)
2. It “appears” to “evaluate” a debtor's case (i.e. asks Debtor to fill out information, which is transmitted along with contact to lawyer) in referring to a local lawyer for an evaluation (“case evaluation form”) but he sees the only relevant info as being the zip code, which automatically determines that inquiry be referred to a single lawyer who has paid for that zipcode;
3. It grants territorial “exclusivity” to a single lawyer or law firm for each territory (in this case, zip code), and;
4. The lawyer pays for each filled out evaluation form that is forwarded to that lawyer, which the CDC sees as a “referral”, even if that contact does not retain in the Debtor retaining the lawyer.
Of course, the quality and class of the websites, the “territorial exclusivity” and the “targeted” results, which month by month give you precisely measurable results, are exactly the factors which the CDC focuses on… he appears to believe that the commercial success of these techniques actually enhances their danger to the consumer and makes the participation more clearly unethical.
For all users of modern internet marketing, well worth the read and very frightening…