My colleague Sergei Lemberg and I recently wrote about the challenging patchwork quilt that state lawyer advertising regulations present to members of the bar who advertise nationally and those of us who advise them. Near the end of the article we suggested that maybe advertising regulation should be left to consumer protection folks, where the focus would be on content, truthfulness and the lack of unfair trade practices, instead of compliance with detailed filing, record-retention and other rules that hamper lawyer advertisers but seem to be disregarded by nonlawyer lead-generation enterprises on the internet. Little did we know that, at least in Connecticut, consumer protection officials are already investigating lawyer advertising.
In a case captioned Harris v. Kimmels & Silverman, pending in Hartford, the commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection sought an order compelling a Pennsylvania law firm with an office in Danielson to comply with a civil investigative demand concerning its advertising and business practices in soliciting and representing Connecticut consumers in connection with “Lemon Law” claims. After a complaint from a client, department investigators viewed Kimmels & Silverman’s website, were apparently concerned about some of the information found there, and wondered if Connecticut clients were being given proper advice and guidance through the thicket that is Lemon Law jurisprudence. They asked the firm to give them a list of Connecticut clients, and information about fees and expenses charged.
