Here's the ABC News story:
An all-female law firm is turning heads in Chicago with a new billboard and a blunt message:
"Life's Short. Get a Divorce."
The billboard, sponsored by Fetman, Garland & Associates, Ltd., a firm that specializes in divorce cases, features the six-pack abs of a headless male torso and tanned female cleavage heaving forth from a black lace bra....
"It's grotesque," said John Ducanto, past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "It's totally undignified and offensive."
"It trivializes divorce and I think it's absolutely disgusting," Rick Tivers, a clinical social worker at the Center for Divorce Recovery in Chicago, told ABC News....
Ducanto called on the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee of Supreme Court of Illinois to sanction [lawyer Corri] Fetman.... But the ARDC's deputy administrator James Grogan told ABC News that traditionally Illinois has been reluctant to sanction lawyers for anything short of false or misleading advertising....
"This has to be the Academy Award of bad taste," [leading divorce lawyer Raoul] Felder told ABC News.... Karen Enright, president-elect of the Women's Bar of Illinois, shared similar feelings. "It's actually a disappointment to the profession and to the institution of marriage, which is something our community holds as sacred," she said. "Our profession, and lawyers in general, have been under attack for advertisements similar to this and I think," she said, pausing. "I think that it's not in good taste." ...
"Lawyers don't cause divorces. People cause divorces," [Fetman replies]. "If you think somebody's going to look at a billboard and go out and get a divorce as a result, you're insulting the intelligence of people. If that's the case, our next billboard is going to read, 'Gimme Your Money.'" ...
"Everybody's got a pretty good sense of humor in this neighborhood," said Greg Horan, director of operations for Gibson's Steakhouse, one of the three restaurant/bars [near the billboard] .... "We don't endorse it or anything, but sure, people will look up and get a chuckle out of it."
As to the legal question, I think it's unlikely that the state bar would punish the lawyer, and such punishment would probably be unconstitutional. It's possible that the Court would uphold restrictions on lawyer advertising when the advertising is seen as reflecting poorly on the legal profession; see Florida Bar v. Went for It (1995). But I doubt that Went for It would go that far (and I'm not sure whether Went for It would be decided the same way today, given that Justice Thomas, one of the votes in the five-Justice majority, has since shifted to being far more protective of commercial speech rights). As to the taste question, my tentative sense is that this is indeed in poor taste, though on the other hand it is pretty clearly a joke — maybe it's not much different from other humor that makes light of sad situations.
Thanks to George Weiss for the pointer.
Or maybe not. ha
On a more serious note, in response to the statement that "Lawyers don't cause divorces. People cause divorces," I would suggest that some attorneys don't bother to let clients know up front what they are in for. I recall being impressed with Danny DeVito in War of the Roses being very careful to outline all the downsides to divorce to a young fellow seeking a prenup
(or was it a divorce?). How many attorneys really give clients the full monty upfront?
Marriage is a pain in the rear, but I have heard that divorce is much more than that, and more expensive.
Yes, about 65% of divorces are initiated by women, but it's a stretch to say that they are donig it to get a better deal. Both parties end up with less money immediately after a divorce (as some of it goes to attorney's fees and the same salary has to support two households). There is some evidence that women are much worse off economically than are men after divorce.
I mean most people would oppose fines or other penalties for divorce which suggests that they don't believe that divorces are far too easy to get. This law firm just does the balancing slightly differently and concludes that people are too willing to stay in bad marriages and I don't know that I disagree with them. The truth is that the view presented on the billboard isn't that far from people's revealed preferences and behaviors. The reason the law firm is getting shit is not because the idea is so bad/outlandish but because people like to pretend they are far more respectful of marriage than they truly are.
In other words I think this situation is much like the protest you might get if someone put up a billboard opposing a new law spending money on children's health with the serious message, "Is this child's life really worth $10 million dollars?" People would be outraged even though they implicitly make this sort of deciscion all the time when they vote against health spending because they like to think of themselves as prioritizing children's lives over money despite the facts. Similarly here people like to think of encouraging divorce as an obvious harm even though their actions and any reasonable theory of the issue says there must be an optimal level of divorce and it is possible we are on the wrong side of it.
---
As to why a male firm wouldn't get away with a similar billboard. I think this is the result of social stereotypes that say men are are more likely to divorce women for cruel and heartless reasons (or just selfish ones like a younger girl) while women divorce men because they are actually jerks. Almost certainly it is false but something like this is still the socially default view. Hence an all male law firm would get far more shit for putting up a billboard than an all female one and thus wouldn't do it.
It may be unfair but the world runs on unreasonable stereotypes.
I'm not asking for an argument as to why this is wrong or why you think we ought to be encouraging divorce. I'm asking why this shouldn't be regarded as a reasonable (though perhaps mistaken) view that is no different than other reasonable views that may cause offense (anti-affirmative action etc..).
Truepath, you must have been asleep the last few election cycles. The reason why people don't get divorced is because gay marriage isn't legalized anywhere except Mass. If gay marriage is legalized, well, just watch the torrent of people getting divorced and families fall apart.
Or at least so I'm told by the right wingnuts.
"Wife fat? Hire a stripper!"
Any business certainly has the right to publicly advertise in whatever fashion it thinks best, but for my part, I'm pretty unimpressed by the "professionalism" displayed by Fetman and her associates. They would have been well-advised to remember that they're selling legal services, not beer or cars.
So, go get divorced. Do it for the children.
Link: Get a divorce??
I don't even understand this argument. What does the fact that there are consumer protection laws that require you have documented certain knowledge and went through appropriate training before practicing law have to do with taste regulations. Anyone can become a lawyer they just need to go to law school and pass the bar. I don't have anything more to say her because I'm genuinely baffled what the argument is supposed to be here.
---
mabman said:
For all I know these lawyers have been through bad marriages of their own.
But I don't understand how the opinion that people in bad marriages should get out and live life can be reasonable when held by one group of people but suddenly unreasonable when held by lawyers who have a commercial interest in the issue. Either that opinion is a reasonable one or not. I mean lawyers also have a commercial interest in stopping tort reform but this doesn't mean it is in bad taste for them to fund political ads expressing their concerns about the idea.
Maybe I'm just missing what you guys find objectionable. Is it the statement about divorce or the sexy pics. Still I disagree that either consideration really reflects poorly on lawyers. This is nothing compared to the image perpetuated by almost any legal ad on TV, e.g, the ones offering to fight the IRS or sue for mesophelioma. This just suggests that some lawyers have a sense of humor and some of them have controversial views about marriage. As the lawyer from the firm said I don't think anyone seriously believes ads like this are pulling in people who weren't thinking about divorce the way those mesophelioma ads do.
I was hoping for a good legal response to Smokey's comment, since I always think the same thing (as Smokey) when discussions about gay marriage come up; i.e., how's about the government gets out of the marriage business entirely? (Except insofar as the government is involved in enforcement of legally binding contracts of all sorts.)
Your question:
"Smokey, what remedy would contract law provide where a spouse suddenly (and unforeseeably) becomes violent and abusive to the other spouse, assuming the marital contract did not incude a liquidated damages clause?"
seems to me to make no sense -- I'm probably not reading it correctly.
Violence and abuse are covered pretty completely by criminal statute, independent of any contractual law, are they not? Is there a reason why spousal abuse needs separate consideration from "roommate abuse" or, simply, "abuse?" And, as regards civil concerns, don't threats and violence and blackmail routinely render contracts null and void, regardless of special clauses?
And if you don't think it's funny, that's fine, but that only makes it bad taste. And it's even worse taste to be disproportionately offended by bad taste.
The latter of course is fairly close to adverts I've seen on late night TV. Either way I don't think they could (or should) be banned -- but I also don't think the organizations that permit them to their members (the ATLA -- or the Superfriends or whatever they're called now) should be shocked at their continuing slide in public opinion. Of course public opinion can't build a 28000 sq foot house
Hear, hear!
It's possible that the Court would uphold restrictions on lawyer advertising when the advertising is seen as reflecting poorly on the legal profession;
Everyone knows the real reason for restricting advertising is to decrease competition and increase profits - indirect price-fixing by hiding the costs.
If the billboard was somewhere else, say along the expressway, maybe the detractors would have a point. But not at that location.
I'm not really making an argument, just an observation. The sign certainly would say to me: "We encourage behavior that is not socially redeeming." Not that I think many divorces aren't necessary per se, but they have unfortunate social costs nevertheless.
An interesting point on the government getting out of the marriage business. I would say that the reason goverment is involved is because of simple social contract. Stable marriages breed social stability and prosperity for society as a whole, and therefore may be rewarded with special status by the governing body. I'm still pondering my position on legal homosexual unions (I'm unwilling to use the term marriage solely because it has meant something for thousands of years; I have trouble hastily revising the meaning of a word to pander to a social cause. I may change my mind sometime). Do these unions give the same social effect as heterosexual marriage? One of my fellow scientists here at work made the comment jokingly about a child with gay parents: "yeah, I mean how could two men *&#%ing each other possible mess a child up?" Crude, yes, but it has stuck with me whenever I try to rationalize possible social benefits of the situation.
Sorry to get a bit off-topic; I'd like to hear more thoughts on the removal of goverment sanctioning of civil unions (marriage or otherwise).
I think we can settle for reform of default rules to the extent these could be refined (e.g. simple "equitable" division of marital property leaves an awful lot to discretion--there could be default formulae for different income, prospects, education of the spouses, etc.) and greater willingness of courts to enforce the terms of prenups where they are at arms length and made by competent adults. But it would be odd to do away with family law completely.
60+ years ago (on TDY as Master at Arms at Great Lakes NTS, before assignment to what turned out to be my last mission) I would see from the "EL" just as it entered the Loop, a HUGE billboard with HUGE letters:
GET A LOT WHILE YOU'RE YOUNG
In very small print at the bottom was the name of a cemetary.
We can often be reminded of the conflicting motivations in the human condition.
From your link:
Dr. Peterson re-evaluated Dr. Weitzman's data and concluded that women have an average 27 percent decline in their standard of living and that men have an average 10 percent increase in their standard of living after divorce.
Looks to me like her conclusion was accurate, but the actual percentages were overstated.
[url=http://www.connectedy.com/exp~home-jobs-2k-day~0]"Real Work At Home Job That Pays $150 - $2,000 a day. No scams just easy work that anyone can do from home. Work at home jobs that really pay."[/url]
Of course not.
The implication isn't "you should divorce if you're in a loveless marriage", the implication is "you should divorce because your partner isn't attractive enough". That *is* offensive, even if we recognize that divorces are needed sometimes and therefore divorce lawyers are doing something useful.
Legal issues aside, it’s not a joke. Its divorce lawyers trying to drum up business. They're not paying for billboard to make jokes and have people laugh. They're doing it to sell divorce services.
Sounds like a little rationalization since its distasteful…
Or you could say that "its divorce lawyers using a joke to drum up business."
You learn (so I hear) in business school that 90% of Advertising is just getting your name out - name recognition - and also to get positive association with the name. If you can make people laugh and remember the name of the law firm in association with the laughter, you have done a great job advertising.
And that, to me, seems much more realistic than that this law firm was actually trying to convince people that they should get divorced. What is more likely: that this law firm will take customers away from other law firms, because its managed to get its name out there, and get good positive association, or that it will convince lots of happily married couples to break up and will get its new business from these new divorcees?
And which do you think the law firm thought was more likely?
Thank you. That puts an understandable legal perspective on the question.
Corri-types can be seen at the East Bank Club.
You heard right. However, under the right circumstances, divorce is well worth the expense. You really can trust me on this.
I'll refrain from commenting on this point, so as not to cause you to become depressed. :) Stay the course.