FINDING A LAWYER
Where does a person go to find a lawyer?
There are many avenues of finding a lawyer. There are many online directories, such as Martindale-Hubbell at martindale.com, that are helpful. Under Martin-dale-Hubbell, you can search for an attorney by location, by name, by practice areas, and by zip code.
Findlaw.com (findlaw.com) also has a section on its website for locating attorneys by practice areas and location. Local and state bar associations have helpful information on locating attorneys. Many attorneys advertise in a variety of media—from the yellow book to Internet websites. On this site you can look for attorney by location and by practice area.
What are the lawyer ratings provided for by Martindale-Hubbell?
Martindale-Hubbell offers a peer review rating system in which attorneys are rated by their peers in the legal profession. There are three ratings—AV, BV, and CV. AV is the highest rating available, though none of the ratings reflect poor layering. CV is the highest rating attainable for a lawyer who has been practicing only three to four
Picking a good lawyer who will represent you well is a decision that must be carefully made. There are websites that include rating systems that can help (iStock).
years. BV is the highest rating available for a lawyer who has been practicing for five to nine years.
What should you look for in an attorney?
A person would want to select an attorney who is proficient and competent in that particular area of the law. For example, if you have been involved in a personal injury, you would want to select an attorney who has some experience and training in that area of law. Law is very specialized and many attorneys specialize in a few areas of law.
Some attorneys specialize in intellectual property (copyright, trademarks, patents), family law, employment law, personal injury, medical malpractice defense, or criminal law. If you are facing criminal charges, you need the services of an attorney well versed in criminal law. Likewise if you are looking to trademark a business slogan, you need the services of someone who is knowledgeable in intellectual property law.
A famous celebrity endorsed a lawyer, but does that mean this is a superior lawyer?
Not necessarily—all that means is that the lawyer had enough money to hire the celebrity to give what is called a testimonial. Most states allow attorneys to advertise with testimonials, but in a few states testimonials are viewed with great skepticism if not prohibited.
LegalSpeak: Ohralik v. Ohio (1978)
Unlike a public advertisement, which simply provides information and leaves the recipient free to act upon it or not, in-person solicitation may exert pressure and often demands an immediate response, without providing an opportunity for comparison or reflection. The aim and effect of in-person solicitation may be to provide a one-sided presentation and to encourage speedy and perhaps uninformed decision-making; there is no opportunity for intervention or counter-education by agencies of the Bar, supervisory authorities, or persons close to the solicited individual..
The substantive evils of solicitation have been stated over the years in sweeping terms: stirring up litigation, assertion of fraudulent claims, debasing the legal profession, and potential harm to the solicited client in the form of overreaching, overcharging, underrepresentation, and misrepresentation..
The Rules prohibiting solicitation are prophylactic measures whose objective is the prevention of harm before it occurs. The Rules were applied in this case to discipline a lawyer for soliciting employment for pecuniary gain under circumstances likely to result in the adverse consequences the State seeks to avert. In such a situation, which is inherently conducive to overreaching and other forms of misconduct, the State has a strong interest in adopting and enforcing rules of conduct designed to protect the public from harmful solicitation by lawyers whom it has licensed.
The State's perception of the potential for harm in circumstances such as those presented in this case is well founded. The detrimental aspects of face-to-face selling even of ordinary consumer products have been recognized and addressed by the Federal Trade Commission, and it hardly need be said that the potential for overreaching is significantly greater when a lawyer, a professional trained in the art of persuasion, personally solicits an unsophisticated, injured, or distressed lay person. Such an individual may place his trust in a lawyer, regardless of the latter's qualifications or the individual's actual need for legal representation, simply in response to persuasion under circumstances conducive to uninformed acquiescence. Although it is argued that personal solicitation is valuable because it may apprise a victim of misfortune of his legal rights, the very plight of that person not only makes him more vulnerable to influence but also may make advice all the more intrusive. Thus, under these adverse conditions the overtures of an uninvited lawyer may distress the solicited individual simply because of their obtrusiveness and the invasion of the individual's privacy, even when no other harm materializes. Under such circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the State to presume that in-person solicitation by lawyers more often than not will be injurious to the person solicited.
