Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

“Legal Brand Marketing” Ethics FAIL">Legal Brand Marketing” Ethics FAIL

When she filled out a form on a web­site look­ing for a lawyer to defend her in a DWI case, do you think it occurred to Ms. Dil­worth that the bone­heads she was send­ing her infor­ma­tion to would be for­ward­ing it to a bunch of strangers, none of whom were bound by attorney-client privilege? 

Email from Legal Brand Marketing

I kid. Of course it didn’t occur to her (here’s the sort of form she filled out; it promises her “con­tact with mul­ti­ple local DUI attorneys”).

Legal Brand Marketing Contact Form

Nor did it occur to her that “my alco­hol level was three times the legal limit” is the sort of state­ment that a pros­e­cu­tor, if he found it, would glee­fully use in cross-examining her.

The prob­lem with out­sourc­ing your mar­ket­ing to yahoos like Blake Knight, with their cav­a­lier atti­tude toward things that should not have been revealed except under the pro­tec­tion of priv­i­lege (“Notes about your DUI”? STFU), should be self-evident. But this out­fit has sev­eral otherwise-reputable DWI lawyers shilling for it.

If when you out­source your mar­ket­ing you out­source your ethics, what is it that do you do when you put on your hot­pants to mar­ket the marketers?

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

3 Responses to “Legal Brand Marketing” Ethics FAIL

  1. Mark Draughn says:

    Steve Gra­ham did a lit­tle test on these guys, and he didn’t like the result. Not only do they spam their mail­ing lists with this infor­ma­tion, but in his state some crim­i­nal defense lawyers work part-time as pros­e­cu­tors. Some­one who fills out that form could lit­er­ally be send­ing it to the guy try­ing to put them in jail.

  2. Peter Naus says:

    For­give my stu­pid­ity (I’m an Aussie unfa­mil­iar with the DUI laws in the States), but what’s the no-no about her admis­sion? If she was tested, then the results stand for them­selves, don’t they? Or was it pos­si­ble for her to deny being intox­i­cated at all, imply­ing that the test results were wrong, and so she could try to get off that way?

    I’m one of those dumb peo­ple who usu­ally admits respon­si­bil­ity for doing silly things when I’m caught, which some­times even works in my favour! I got let off a pretty seri­ous drunk dri­ving charge… the cops paid me a visit (after I got out of hos­pi­tal after crash­ing my bike after a post-work party), and I think they were sur­prised to find a dirty, hairy biker offer­ing them a cuppa tea, then admit­ting I’d had a few too many, and apol­o­gis­ing for wreck­ing two ambu­lances (nei­ther was my fault) and for tak­ing so much of their time. I was way over the limit on the blood­test, and they just screwed up the paper­work in front of me and told me to be more care­ful! So some­times you don’t need a defender!

    Any­way, it’d be great if you could explain the girl’s mis­take for me… Thanks!

    • Mark Bennett says:

      Peter,

      In the US, where DUI law­mak­ing is dri­ven by MADD and polic­ing is dri­ven by over­time, it’s not likely that the cops would delib­er­ately screw up your paper­work in front of you.

      Any admis­sion poten­tially fore­stalls some defense. This one might make it more dif­fi­cult for the defense to argue that the test results are wrong.

      The results do not stand for themselves—there are many pos­si­ble chal­lenges to breath test or blood test results. She wouldn’t have to deny being intox­i­cated at all; the gov­ern­ment has to prove that she is, so it’s pre­sumed that she denies it.

      MB

Leave a non-anonymous Reply